Kalim Khan

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and ordered an IRB repayment.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by allowing the respondent to rely on insurer's examination (IE) reports that were obtained via a non-compliant notice under s. 44(5) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law.

The Tribunal held that the Schedule does not stipulate that a non-compliant notice renders an IE report void ab initio, and the applicant's attendance at the IE precluded the application of s. 55(1).

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that the insurer's notice to attend an insurer's examination (IE) was deficient, rendering the IE reports void and entitling her to ongoing IRBs.

The Tribunal rejected this procedural argument, finding no provision in the Schedule that voids an IE report due to a non-compliant notice.

On the merits, the applicant failed to provide evidence of a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The application for IRBs was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to repay $442.10 in overpaid benefits.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for psychological services and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the respondent failed to comply with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule when denying the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the respondent's denial letters and notices of examination contained sufficient medical reasons and complied with the Schedule.

As the applicant made no submissions on the substantive reasonableness and necessity of the treatment plans, the claims were dismissed, along with claims for interest and an award.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that the respondent's denial notices were deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, rendering the s. 44 assessment reports void and triggering mandatory payment under s. 38(11).

The Tribunal found that while some initial notices were deficient, the applicant was not entitled to the treatment plans because they were not incurred prior to the deficient notice being cured.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that attending an assessment after a deficient notice waives the right to benefits.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The applicant did not make submissions on whether the benefits were reasonable and necessary, but instead argued entitlement on a purely statutory basis, claiming the respondent failed to comply with the mandatory notice provisions in section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent either complied with the notice provisions or, where responses were late, the applicant failed to prove that any goods or services were incurred during the period of non-compliance.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award were denied.

The applicant sought accident benefits for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, and the applicant argued the denial notice was non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule because it was late and lacked sufficient medical reasons.

The Tribunal found that while the notice was one day late, it provided sufficient medical reasons.

Applying the Divisional Court's decision in Catic, the Tribunal held the treatment plan was not payable under s. 38(11) because the expenses were not incurred during the one-day period of non-compliance.

The application was dismissed.