Jun Ki Lee

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she was not removed from the Minor Injury Guideline and dismissed her claim for an income replacement benefit.

The applicant argued that new evidence, including catastrophic impairment reports, and errors in weighing expert psychiatric evidence warranted a reconsideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the new evidence could have been obtained previously and that the applicant's arguments regarding the expert evidence amounted to a disagreement with the Tribunal's weighing of the evidence rather than an error of law or fact.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and various medical benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and she did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her self-employment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove entitlement to an IRB, preferring the respondent's assessors who personally evaluated her over the applicant's paper-review assessor.

The Tribunal also concluded the applicant's physical, dental (TMJ), and psychological injuries did not warrant removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to various statutory accident benefits for psychological and chiropractic services, as well as an advanced X-ray assessment, following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's examination reports, which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and suffered no ongoing accident-related impairment.

The applicant, a South Korean citizen in Canada on a temporary Working Holiday visa, was struck by an unidentified motor vehicle and sought statutory accident benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The Fund denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not "ordinarily resident" in Ontario at the time of the accident, as required by s. 25(1) of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ties to Ontario were temporary, she did not have a permanent residence, and she had not demonstrated an intention to remain in Ontario permanently.

Furthermore, there was no evidence that South Korea offered reciprocal coverage to Ontario residents.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), a psychiatric assessment, and acupuncture treatment.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, noting a lack of medical evidence connecting his knee pain to the accident and consistent post-accident earnings.

The Tribunal also denied the psychiatric assessment, finding no evidence of psychological complaints prior to July 2023, and denied the acupuncture expenses because they were incurred before a treatment plan was submitted.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her psychological injuries and chronic pain warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including psychiatric and chronic pain assessments, lacked corroboration from her family doctor's records and was internally inconsistent.

Preferring the respondent's psychological and physiatry assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a psychological injury or chronic pain with functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.