Jaspal Singh Brar

The plaintiff sought leave to amend her statement of claim to include a declaration of catastrophic impairment and claims for punitive, aggravated, and exemplary damages, and to compel the defendant to produce redacted adjuster's log notes with explanations.

The defendant opposed the amendments, arguing they were new claims barred by the April 1, 2016 amendment to the Insurance Act, which directs statutory accident benefit disputes to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

The court dismissed the request to amend the statement of claim, finding the proposed amendments constituted new claims not implicit in the original pleading.

However, the court granted the request for the production of redacted adjuster's log notes, along with explanations for each redaction, as the defendant had previously undertaken to produce them.

The applicant sought a rehabilitation benefit of $4,534.35 for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary given her extensive pre-existing back issues, lack of documented accident-related complaints for a two-year period, and insufficient medical evidence linking the proposed treatment to the accident.

The applicant's claim for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found their injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed to have new evidence consisting of clinical notes from a doctor advising time off work due to neck pain.

The Associate Chair denied the request for reconsideration because the applicant failed to provide the actual evidence or submissions explaining why the records could not have been obtained prior to the hearing or how they would have changed the decision.

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

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a pre-existing psychological condition (Generalized Anxiety Disorder) removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his pre-existing condition was exacerbated by the accident or that he suffered physical injuries outside the MIG.

Consequently, the claims were subject to the $3,500 limit and the treatment plans were not payable.

The Tribunal also awarded $250 in costs to the insurer due to the applicant's late filing of expert reports and submissions.