Kari-Anne Layng

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied several benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she failed to attend scheduled insurer's examinations (IEs).

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from disputing certain assessments because she failed to attend the IEs without a reasonable explanation.

However, the Tribunal determined the applicant was not subject to the MIG due to a concussion diagnosis.

The applicant was awarded payment for a neuropsychological assessment and psychological services under the shall-pay provisions of s. 38(11) due to defective denial notices, payable once incurred.

Claims for a non-earner benefit and an award were dismissed as the applicant failed to provide submissions on those issues.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits (ACBs), and medical benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant met the post-104 week test for IRBs due to chronic pain and psychological impairments preventing him from returning to his restaurant business, though quantum was deferred.

The applicant was found entitled to ACBs but no amount was payable as the expenses were not incurred.

The Tribunal approved the occupational therapy and physiotherapy treatment plans but denied the social rehabilitation counselling plans.

Claims for an award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for social rehab counselling, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent had already paid the reasonable hourly rate for social work, the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery for physical injuries, and surveillance evidence contradicted the need for occupational therapy.

Claims for an award, interest, and costs were also dismissed.

The court considered a motion by the defendant to compel the plaintiff to attend two defence medicals and to permit late service of expert reports in a motor vehicle accident case.

The court found the defendant's explanation for delay unreasonable and dismissed the motion, except for allowing late service of a neurology report, as the plaintiff did not oppose that part.

The court emphasized the importance of timely expert report exchange and the consequences of litigation strategy that delays compliance with the rules.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $11,319.71 in Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) paid to the respondent, alleging material misrepresentation regarding her employment at the time of the accident.

The respondent failed to comply with pre-hearing requirements and did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent wilfully misrepresented her employment status and employer to establish entitlement to IRBs.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to repay the full amount of $11,319.71, plus interest, pursuant to section 52 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, rejecting claims of chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also excluded late-produced medical records due to the applicant's failure to comply with a Case Conference Report and Order.

The application for benefits, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found him liable to repay $10,988.42 in income replacement benefits due to willful misrepresentation.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator made errors of fact in interpreting video surveillance evidence, which showed him performing physical tasks inconsistent with his reported functional limitations.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant's arguments amounted to a disagreement with the weighing of evidence rather than demonstrating an error of fact that would have changed the outcome.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and funding for a chiropractic treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, relying on insurer's examination reports that found no physical or psychological disability.

The adjudicator also denied the treatment plan, finding it was not reasonable and necessary as the applicant had fully recovered from her soft tissue injuries.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, brought an application against the condominium corporation and its board of directors seeking an oppression remedy and compliance orders under the Condominium Act.

The applicants alleged the board acted oppressively by ignoring communications, mishandling an elevator malfunction, and copying the applicants' employers on a warning letter regarding harassment.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the board acted reasonably and in good faith in response to the applicants' excessive communications.

The court also held that several of the applicants' claims were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and that defamation claims could not be brought via application.