Joseph Wilfred Clarence Fearon

The applicant, who was struck by a car while riding his bicycle, sought $2,200 for an occupational therapy assessment and attendant care needs evaluation under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's medical evidence, noting the applicant's complex pre-existing medical history and a lack of contemporaneous medical records supporting accident-related functional impairments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain assessment and a functional assessment, as well as a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the chronic pain assessment to be reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's assessors over the respondent's assessors.

However, the Tribunal denied the functional assessment because it was based solely on a telephone consultation.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed as the respondent's denial did not constitute unreasonable conduct.

The Court held that negligence claims for mental injury do not require proof of a recognized psychiatric illness or expert diagnosis as a legal precondition.

A claimant must still prove serious and prolonged disturbance beyond ordinary distress under general negligence principles, including duty, breach, causation, and remoteness.

On the record, the trial judge’s factual findings of compensable mental injury based on lay evidence were entitled to deference.

The Court allowed the appeal, restored the trial award, and declined to remand issues of indivisibility and quantum.