Jennifer Macko

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a concussion and psychological impairment, as well as entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence did not support a concussion or psychological impairment, keeping the applicant within the MIG and denying the treatment plans.

Although the applicant failed to meet the substantive test for IRBs, the Tribunal awarded IRBs from February 27, 2023, to April 14, 2023, because the insurer failed to respond to the disability certificate within the required 10 business days under s. 36(4) of the Schedule.

Claims for an award were dismissed.

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 she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain with functional impairment and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet her burden to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG, noting inconsistencies in her expert reports and a lack of documented functional impairment in her primary care records.

As the MIG applied, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for interest, a special award, and costs were also dismissed.

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 claimed she suffered from psychological impairments and chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not prove she suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain caused by the accident, preferring the respondent's expert evidence and the clinical notes of the applicant's family doctor.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries remained within the MIG, dismissing the claims for the psychological assessment, an award, and interest.

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

The respondent insurer denied three treatment plans for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, specifically a lumbar sprain and mechanical back pain, and failed to establish chronic pain or a psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also held that the respondent's denial notices complied with s. 38(8) of the Schedule by providing sufficient medical reasons based on insurer examinations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ministry's decision to provide disability funding for the applicant's daughter through a transfer payment agency rather than directly to a family-run microboard.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry's decision was reasonable, did not fetter its discretion, and did not breach procedural fairness.

The court held that the Ministry has broad statutory discretion to determine how to allocate and administer funding, and its reliance on transfer payment agencies for oversight and accountability was a reasonable exercise of that discretion.