Kasia Kosacka

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

The applicant's representative removed himself from the record prior to the hearing.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled video hearing, despite receiving proper notice and multiple attempts by the respondent and the Tribunal to contact him.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The adjudicator proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to section 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and dismissed the application, as the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary onus to prove his case.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that pre-existing back pain, chronic pain, and psychological impairments removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claims, noting that his family physician did not diagnose chronic pain or psychological impairment, and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained minor injuries subject to the MIG limit, dismissing the claims for additional medical benefits and examination expenses.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a case conference decision that denied their request for the production of raw test data from the respondent's psychological IME assessor.

The applicant expanded their request to include data from two additional assessors not mentioned in the original decision.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to specify the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 and improperly advanced new claims.

The applicant failed to make a prima facie case that the original decision contained any error meriting reconsideration.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) for 104 weeks.

The respondent terminated IRBs on the basis that the applicant did not meet the post-104 week test of a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for dispute resolution.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding his pain levels to be unreliable, noting evidence of symptom exaggeration and malingering from the respondent's expert assessors.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove he suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment and dismissed the claims for IRBs, interest, and a special award.

The court determined questions of law in a special case arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The primary issue was whether Dmytro Lavrov's vehicle was insured by Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) at the time of the accident, considering MPI's inter-jurisdictional undertaking and notice requirements for policy suspension.

The court found that MPI was precluded from denying coverage based on Dmytro Lavrov's failure to register his vehicle in Ontario and MPI's failure to provide proper notice of policy suspension under Manitoba law, or equivalent Ontario law.

The third-party claim for contribution and indemnity was not conclusively statute-barred, but the limitation defence otherwise remained outstanding for future determination.

The defendants moved for summary judgment in multiple consolidated medical malpractice actions, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs contended that their claims were only discovered after a 2011 press release and media coverage regarding allegations against Dr. Frank.

The court applied the objective discoverability test, finding that the plaintiffs were aware, or ought to have been aware, of the material facts giving rise to their claims well before the press release.

The information from the press release did not provide new material facts related to their individual care but rather served as evidence to support existing allegations.

Consequently, the court determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence in discovering their claims, and thus, their actions were statute-barred.