Jordan Kofman

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal found the applicant catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8, as her psychological impairments significantly impeded useful functioning in concentration, persistence, and pace.

The Tribunal awarded post-104 income replacement benefits and partial attendant care benefits, but denied the disputed treatment plans as the applicant failed to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found she was not involved in an accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness, made errors of law, and failed to properly apply the legal test for an accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-litigate her case and that no errors of law or procedural fairness violations occurred.

The Tribunal confirmed its previous finding that the applicant's impairments arose from the aftermath of the accident, not the use or operation of an automobile.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving a rental vehicle leased by the defendant lessee but driven by an unauthorized third party.

The sole issue at trial was whether the lessee had given express or implied consent to his friend to possess the vehicle, which would make the lessee vicariously liable under s. 192(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court rejected the lessee's evidence that he had flatly refused his friend's request to use the vehicle, finding his subsequent conduct inconsistent with a refusal.

The court concluded that the presumption of consent was not rebutted and held the lessee vicariously liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying him statutory accident benefits after he fell from the roof of his camper trailer while cleaning it.

The Adjudicator had found the incident did not meet the causation test for an 'accident' because there was no evidence the appellant tripped on the trailer or that the trailer directly caused the fall.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator erred in law by requiring direct physical contact with the vehicle to establish causation.

The court found that falling from the trailer while inspecting it was a normal incident of the risk created by its use, satisfying the definition of an accident under the Schedule.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired following a 2012 motorcycle accident, sought entitlement to 24-hour attendant care benefits ($7,522.85 per month) due to severe psychological impairments, including panic attacks, memory issues, and anger outbursts.

The respondent argued that 24-hour supervision was not an appropriate psychological treatment and recommended cognitive behavioural therapy instead.

The Tribunal found that while therapy might eventually reduce the applicant's fear of being alone, the proposed attendant care was reasonable and necessary in the interim to address significant safety concerns and manage his psychological symptoms.

The applicant was awarded the ongoing attendant care benefits.