Jonathan Beiles

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and medical benefits.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence despite receiving notice and extensions.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming it exacerbated a pre-existing right shoulder injury sustained in a workplace accident two months prior.

The respondent denied treatment plans for a chronic pain assessment and physiotherapy.

The Tribunal found that while the motor vehicle accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's injuries, the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was already receiving extensive treatment for her shoulder through a specialized program, and medical evidence indicated she had reached maximal medical recovery for the accident-related soft tissue injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment, arguing the motion judge erred in finding the respondent met her duty to mitigate following his breach of a contract of purchase and sale, and that the motion judge's reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's reasons functionally adequate and her determination on mitigation reasonable.

The respondent was not obligated to grant further extensions or engage with the appellant's subsequent offers after his repeated failure to close the transaction.