Jeffery Rayburn Crannie

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after a pick-up truck crashed into his home while he was sleeping, causing him to wake up in a panic to alarms and strobe lights, resulting in psychological impairments.

The insurer denied benefits, arguing the applicant was not an 'insured person' involved in an 'accident' because he merely witnessed the aftermath.

The Tribunal found that the incident met the purpose and causation tests for an accident, as the vehicle was in operation when it struck the home and directly caused the applicant's injuries without any intervening act.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was involved in the accident and met the definition of an insured person, allowing the application to proceed to a hearing on the substantive issues.

The court considered whether questions regarding past loss of income, future loss of income, and loss of competitive advantage should be put to the jury in a personal injury action.

The court found there was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider past loss of income and loss of competitive advantage, but not future loss of income, as the evidence for the latter was speculative and insufficient.

The ruling reviews the legal standards for submitting damages questions to a jury and the evidentiary requirements for each head of damages.

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue arguing the applicant was barred from proceeding with her claim for home modification benefits because she failed to attend scheduled insurer examinations (IEs) under section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the IE notices were deficient and that the insurer could not request an IE after the LAT application was filed.

The Tribunal found that while the first IE notice was deficient, the second and third notices complied with the Schedule.

The Tribunal also held that an insurer is not precluded from requesting an IE after a LAT application is filed.

Because the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her non-attendance at the validly scheduled IEs, she was barred from proceeding under section 55 of the Schedule, and her application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a non-earner benefit and various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was statute-barred from claiming the non-earner benefit and several treatment plans because she failed to attend required section 44 insurer's examinations prior to applying to the Tribunal.

The remaining treatment plans were denied because they were either incurred before submission or the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought dispute resolution at the Licence Appeal Tribunal after the respondent insurer denied various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was barred from proceeding with several claims due to her unexcused failure to attend scheduled insurer's examinations.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that the proposed physiotherapy, assessments, and additional psychological therapy were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

The insurer sought its expenses of $24,213.20 following an arbitration hearing where it successfully argued the applicant was not catastrophically impaired.

The arbitrator found there was divided success, as the applicant was only 1% away from the catastrophic impairment threshold and was successful on some treatment plans.

The insurer's offers to settle were not compliant with the Code as they were on a full and final basis.

Considering the criteria in the Code, the arbitrator ordered that each side bear its own expenses.

The appellant insured's appeal regarding catastrophic impairment and income replacement benefits was previously dismissed.

The successful respondent insurer sought its appeal costs in the amount of $18,742.02.

The Director's Delegate reviewed the criteria under Rule 75.2 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, noting that the overriding consideration in fixing arbitration expenses is reasonableness.

Finding the claimed lawyer hours excessive for a non-complex appeal and the transcript costs unrecoverable, the Director's Delegate fixed the insurer's appeal expenses at $4,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, housekeeping benefits, and costs of examinations.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold for catastrophic impairment, as his psychological and chronic pain impairments were moderate rather than marked.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed because the applicant continued to work and his income increased post-accident, failing to meet the substantial inability test.

The claim for housekeeping benefits was dismissed as he was not catastrophically impaired.

The arbitrator awarded $2,000 for a coordinator's assessment fees but denied other examination costs.

The defendant brought a motion seeking production of outstanding undertakings from discovery, including employment, insurance, and medical records, production of photographs and Facebook content, and an order requiring the plaintiff to undergo a bone scan as part of an independent medical examination.

The court held that a party who undertakes to obtain records from non-parties must take reasonable follow‑up steps where appropriate.

The court ordered the plaintiff to follow up with certain third parties and to serve a supplementary affidavit of documents disclosing relevant photographs depicting her activities before and after the accident.

However, the request for full access to the plaintiff’s Facebook profile was denied due to lack of evidence that relevant documents had been omitted.

The court further ordered the plaintiff to undergo the bone scan recommended by the defence medical examiner, finding it necessary for trial fairness.

The insurer brought a motion for an order compelling the insured to attend insurer medical examinations with a psychologist and a physiatrist under section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insured argued the examinations were primarily for hearing preparation.

The arbitrator found the examinations were reasonable and necessary because the insured's delayed and limited productions restricted the insurer's ability to assess the claim.

The arbitration was stayed pending the insured's attendance at the examinations.

The appellant insurance company appealed an order regarding the interpretation of an insurance policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that clause 14 of the policy was at best ambiguous.

Applying the contra proferentem rule, the court interpreted the clause in favour of the respondent insured and awarded costs of the appeal.