Jeffery Booth

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found they were statute-barred from claiming income replacement benefits and had not suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant argued the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness and erred in law and fact by neglecting their health status and pre-accident trauma, and by improperly weighing evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness and no error of law or fact, noting that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold required for reconsideration.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment based on mental and behavioural impairments.

The adjudicator first determined that the applicant was statute-barred from claiming income replacement benefits because they failed to submit a Disability Certificate (OCF-3) within 104 weeks of the accident.

On the issue of catastrophic impairment, the adjudicator preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychiatric expert, finding that the applicant's functional impairments were related to a well-documented, long-standing psychiatric history rather than the subject accident.

The adjudicator also dismissed the applicant's claims for unapproved portions of psychological and chiropractic treatment plans, as well as a catastrophic assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an automobile accident.

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing it was not required to pay income replacement benefits under s. 31(1) of the Schedule because the applicant intentionally failed to disclose a material change in risk.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had moved from Brantford to Toronto and intentionally failed to notify the insurer of this change of address, which would have significantly increased his insurance premiums.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the respondent was not required to pay the applicant an income replacement benefit.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a trial judge's order of no costs, which was made after a 12-day jury trial where the plaintiff recovered no damages due to the statutory deductible and threshold motion.

The trial judge had relied on the plaintiff's impecuniosity to make the no costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no strong grounds to believe the trial judge made an error in principle in exercising his discretion.