Lauren Cullen

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing her placement in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits (ACBs), and specific treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, rejecting claims of an accident-related concussion and chronic pain syndrome due to a lack of contemporaneous and consistent medical evidence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for IRBs and ACBs, finding the applicant did not demonstrate a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment tasks or a functional need for attendant care.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiff tripped and fell on a city-owned sidewalk, sustaining serious injuries.

She alleged the municipality failed to keep the sidewalk in a reasonable state of repair.

The municipality argued the surface discontinuity did not exceed the two-centimetre threshold requiring repair under the Minimum Maintenance Standards.

Furthermore, the municipality argued its failure to conduct an annual inspection was due to the COVID-19 state of emergency and constituted a core policy decision.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the defect exceeded two centimetres.

In the alternative, the court held the municipality's decision to suspend sidewalk inspections during the pandemic was a core policy decision immune from liability, and the municipality established a statutory defence as it could not reasonably have known of the defect.

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

The respondent insurer denied two physiotherapy treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a concussion, supported by emergency room records and a family physician's diagnosis, which warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the disputed treatment plans and awarded a 50% penalty under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the insurer's refusal to accept the concussion diagnosis and reliance on a flawed independent medical examination constituted stubborn and unreasonable conduct.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a minor rear-end collision.

The insurer denied treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and cannabis medication on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued his injuries fell outside the MIG due to a concussion, chronic back pain, an annular tear, psychological impairment, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support these claims, noting steady improvement in the applicant's condition, intervening events causing back pain flare-ups, and surveillance footage showing the applicant skiing and carrying his child.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and is subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, dismissing the claims for additional medical benefits.

The plaintiff moved for production of TD General Insurance Company's file contents.

TD, acting as the statutory third party and motor vehicle liability insurer for defendant Jamil Haider, resisted the motion, asserting litigation privilege.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, holding that litigation privilege had not been waived by TD taking an off-coverage position or by its solicitors ceasing to act for the insured.

The court found that the plaintiff's request was too broad, the information sought was not directly relevant to the plaintiff's *lis* with TD, and crucially, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that there was no reasonable alternative form of evidence to obtain the information, having not exhausted all avenues to obtain information from the insured or other sources.