Jason R. Frost

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet their burden of proof.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found him statute-barred from proceeding with his application for accident benefits under s. 61 of the Schedule.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact regarding the NAL policy, errors of law in failing to consider cited caselaw, and breached procedural fairness by providing insufficient reasons regarding an affidavit.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of fact or law, and concluding that the original decision provided sufficient reasons and met the threshold for procedural fairness.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while working as a truck driver.

He applied for statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The respondent argued the applicant was barred under s. 61 of the Schedule because he was entitled to benefits under an alternative workers' compensation plan provided by NAL Insurance through his employment contract.

The Tribunal found that the NAL policy constituted a workers' compensation plan under s. 61(1) and that the applicant had received benefits under it.

The Tribunal further held that the s. 61(2) exception did not apply because the applicant did not make an election under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness and that the LAT erred in its catastrophic impairment analysis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness and concluding that the LAT's findings regarding the appellant's pre-existing psychological conditions were factual determinations supported by evidence, which are not reviewable on an appeal restricted to questions of law.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision awarding the applicant income replacement benefits and two treatment plans.

The insurer argued the Tribunal reversed the evidentiary onus, misapplied the legal test for benefits, and made erroneous findings of fact regarding validity testing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that it had properly weighed the totality of the medical evidence without reversing the onus, and that any omissions regarding validity testing did not meet the high threshold for reconsideration.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied benefits, arguing non-compliance with an examination under oath and that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found the insurer could not rely on the examination under oath non-compliance because it improperly sought a mixed examination.

The Tribunal removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline due to an accident-related chronic pain condition, approving several physical rehabilitation and pain assessment plans.

However, claims for an income replacement benefit and various psychological and cognitive assessments were dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant alleged violations of procedural fairness and errors of fact, including issues with the production of an examination under oath transcript and the legibility of clinical notes.

The adjudicator found no breach of procedural fairness and concluded that the findings of fact regarding the accident description and the applicant's pre-existing psychological history were supported by the evidence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

However, the applicant was awarded a physiotherapy treatment plan because the respondent insurer failed to provide a proper denial notice under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for a psychological assessment and a special award.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $16,931.56 in income replacement benefits, finding that the applicant wilfully misrepresented his employment status by returning to work as a realtor and operating a short-term rental business without disclosing the income to the insurer.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a minor motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to psychological issues.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's significant psychological impairments, including a history of threatening behaviours and inability to work, pre-dated the accident.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's expert evidence as it was based on inaccurate self-reporting of her pre-accident function.

The application was dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove a catastrophic impairment, and her claims for various treatment plans were either statute-barred or unsupported by submissions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for various treatment plans and a psychological assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of law and fact regarding the evidentiary burden for proving treatments were reasonable and necessary, and in finding the psychological assessment was duplicative.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact in the original decision, which correctly applied the binding precedent that the applicant bears the evidentiary onus.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her entitlement to attendant care benefits following a catastrophic motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged errors were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law, and that the appellant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, as the case did not present exceptional circumstances.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant failed to comply with section 33 requests for information regarding a potential address misrepresentation, and alternatively, that the applicant did not meet the disability test.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not have a reasonable explanation for failing to provide most of the requested documents, justifying the respondent's withholding of benefits.

Substantively, relying on the respondent's insurer's examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a cleaner.

The claims for IRBs, an award, interest, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit (NEB) and funding for psychological assessments and treatment.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to the NEB, as his pre-existing medical conditions, rather than accident-related impairments, impacted his daily functioning, and he failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for psychological services and assessments, preferring the evidence of the insurer's section 44 assessor that the applicant did not suffer from a diagnosable accident-related psychological impairment.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services and goods, as well as a physiatry assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that the assessment was unnecessary due to a prior insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found the respondent's denial notice for the treatment plan was medically deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, entitling the applicant to the benefits under s. 38(11).

The Tribunal also found the physiatry assessment was reasonable and necessary because the applicant's condition had substantively deteriorated since the prior examination, with new physical and psychological diagnoses emerging.

The applicant was awarded the disputed benefits and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and not supported by diagnostic imaging.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological and medical assessments, concluding the applicant did not suffer from chronic pain or a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that allowed the applicant to proceed with a claim for income replacement benefits for the period prior to July 11, 2017.

The insurer argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness and erred in law by splitting the limitation period analysis into pre- and post-denial periods.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no denial of natural justice and concluding that the insurer's termination letter was ambiguous regarding the pre-termination period, meaning the limitation period was not triggered until a subsequent accounting report was provided.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claim for additional attendant care benefits.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the main issue, ignored evidence, and demonstrated bias.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness, no error of law or fact, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The original decision was upheld.

This appeal addressed whether Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) on attendant care benefits was included within the statutory maximums under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) for accidents occurring before June 3, 2019.

The appellant (insured) argued that HST should be payable in addition to the maximums, while the respondent (insurer) contended it was part of the maximums.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding that the relevant SABS provisions were unambiguous and that HST constituted a "reasonable and necessary expense" included within the $6,000 monthly and $1,000,000 total maximums for attendant care benefits.

The court emphasized that the same words in a statute must be given the same meaning throughout.

The defendant Unifund brought a motion to strike the statement of defence of the third party for failing to attend an examination for discovery despite multiple notices and a prior court order.

Counsel for the third party argued they had been unable to contact their client.

The court criticized the delay and lack of effort to locate the third party, ordering counsel to retain an investigator and produce the third party for discovery by August 30, 2022, failing which counsel must move to be removed from the record and Unifund may renew its motion to strike.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to Unifund.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care, physiotherapy, transportation expenses, and housekeeping benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the attendant care expenses were incurred or that the provider suffered an economic loss.

Further attendant care claims were denied as not reasonable and necessary, supported by surveillance footage contradicting the applicant's reported limitations.

The physiotherapy claim was dismissed because it had already been paid by a collateral benefits carrier.

Transportation expenses for gas, lottery tickets, and water were denied as they did not meet the 50-kilometer threshold for authorized transportation.

Finally, the housekeeping claim was dismissed because the applicant had not sustained a catastrophic impairment.