Karen Hulan

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, hearing aids, and neuro-visual therapy following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's medical assessors, who concluded that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery for soft tissue injuries, had normal audiogram results, and showed no ophthalmic sequela related to the accident.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical/rehabilitation benefits (chiropractic and occupational therapy) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary onus to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment within 104 weeks, or a complete inability to engage in suitable employment thereafter.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The defendant, Peter Cunnington, brought a motion seeking an order to stay or dismiss the plaintiff's action, or alternatively, to require the plaintiff to post security for defence costs pursuant to Rules 56.01 and 56.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, ordinarily resident in Michigan, opposed the motion.

The court found that the plaintiff's counsel had adequately responded to the demand regarding residency, thus declining to stay or dismiss the action under Rule 56.02.

However, the court determined that the defendant met the low onus under Rule 56.01(1)(a) by establishing the plaintiff's ordinary residency outside Ontario.

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of assets in Ontario or a reciprocating jurisdiction to satisfy a potential costs order, relying on a hearsay affidavit from counsel.

While the claim was not deemed frivolous or vexatious under Rule 56.01(1)(e), the plaintiff, not being impecunious, failed to demonstrate a "real possibility of success" given significant causation and credibility issues.

The court also found the defendant's delay in bringing the motion was sufficiently explained and did not prejudice the plaintiff.

Consequently, the court ordered the plaintiff to post $15,000 as security for costs, prohibiting further steps in the proceeding until the security is posted.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle in a parking lot, sustaining crush injuries to her feet.

She sought $900 for chiropractic treatment to address low back and pelvic pain, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the pain was caused by pre-existing arthritis rather than the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's altered gait from her foot injuries caused overcompensation resulting in low back pain, satisfying the 'but for' test for causation.

The Tribunal held the treatment was reasonable and necessary, ordering the respondent to pay the $900 plus interest, but denied the applicant's request for costs.

The applicant, a pedestrian injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits for vision impairments.

The respondent insurer denied treatment plans for visual training and therapeutic glasses, arguing the vision issues were pre-existing and not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's vision impairments were caused or exacerbated by the accident, preferring the evidence of her treating practitioners over the respondent's neurological assessor.

The Tribunal concluded that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, and ordered the respondent to pay for them with interest.

The applicant's husband fell from his wheelchair while disembarking from a transit van, sustaining a concussion and severe back pain.

Due to the uncontrolled pain from the fall, he refused his life-sustaining dialysis treatments and subsequently died.

The applicant sought death and funeral benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the 'but for' causation test and found that the fall directly caused the uncontrolled pain, which in turn caused the refusal of dialysis and resulting death.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the death and funeral benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, as well as post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRB), which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant likely suffered a concussion and continued to experience dizziness, cognitive impairments, and psychological difficulties.

The Tribunal determined that the proposed treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and speech language therapy were reasonable and necessary, with the exception of a weighted vest.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the test for post-104 week IRB, as her ongoing impairments rendered her completely unable to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited.

The respondent was ordered to pay the disputed benefits and interest.