7 total
Applicant permitted to proceed with late accident benefits claim due to reasonable explanation, but barred from non-earner benefits.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and submitted her application for accident benefits nearly two years late.
The insurer argued she was barred from proceeding with her claim.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay due to her struggles with substance abuse, homelessness, poverty, and incarceration following the accident.
However, the Tribunal held that the applicant was barred from claiming non-earner benefits because she failed to submit a disability certificate within the 104-week eligibility period.
Application for accident benefits dismissed as statute-barred due to unexplained two-year delay in notifying insurer.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident on October 10, 2019.
The respondent denied benefits because the applicant failed to notify them of her intention to apply until October 14, 2021, well beyond the seven-day limit prescribed by section 32(1) of the Schedule.
The applicant did not file submissions or evidence to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her onus to establish a reasonable explanation and held that she was statute-barred from proceeding with her application under section 55(1)1 of the Schedule.
The application was dismissed.
Application for accident benefits dismissed due to unexcused 19-month delay in notifying the insurer.
The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits 19 months later.
The respondent insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant failed to notify them of his intention to apply within seven days, as required by section 32(1) of the Schedule.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a credible or reasonable explanation for the delay under section 34, rejecting his psychological assessment report as unpersuasive.
The application was dismissed and the applicant was barred from proceeding.
Application for accident benefits dismissed; injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and limits were exhausted.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal found the applicant was not statute-barred from disputing a treatment plan, as the limitation period was extended by 183 days due to the COVID-19 pandemic under O. Reg. 73/20.
On the substantive issues, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.
Because the $3,500 MIG limit was already exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and the application was dismissed.
Application for accident benefits dismissed as statute-barred due to limitation period expiry and non-attendance at independent examination.
The respondent argued the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with his claim for psychological services because he failed to commence his application within two years of the denial, and statute-barred from claiming other medical benefits because he failed to attend a scheduled independent examination under s. 44 of the Schedule.
The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide evidence justifying an extension of the limitation period under s. 7 of the LAT Act and failed to establish that his heart surgery prevented him from attending the independent examination.
The application was dismissed as statute-barred.
Reconsideration request dismissed as applicant failed to prove errors of law or fact regarding MIG limits.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that his accident-related impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The applicant argued that the adjudicator erred in law and fact regarding his psychological impairments and chronic pain syndrome.
The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-weigh evidence and advance new arguments not raised at the initial hearing.
The adjudicator concluded that no errors of law or fact were made that would warrant a reconsideration.
The court imposed a remedial constructive trust over property sale proceeds due to unjust enrichment.
The applicant sought a declaration of beneficial ownership of a property, arguing for a bare trust or, alternatively, a constructive trust due to unjust enrichment.
The respondents, estates of former officers, claimed ownership.
The court found no express bare trust due to lack of certainty of intention and objects.
However, it found unjust enrichment of the respondents' estates and corresponding deprivation of the applicant, with no juristic reason for the enrichment.
A remedial constructive trust was imposed on the sale proceeds, with the applicant receiving 75% and the respondents' estates receiving 25%.
