Lawson Hennick

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to two treatment plans for chiropractic, massage, and physiotherapy services.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by declining to consider clinical notes and records, and erred in fact and law by finding the benefits of the therapy unclear.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness because the applicant failed to comply with a Case Conference Report and Order requiring pinpoint references to evidence.

The Tribunal also found no error of law or fact, noting that the hearing adjudicator properly weighed the medical evidence, including a section 44 physiatry assessment, and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-litigate the weight assigned to evidence.

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

The respondent insurer denied portions of two physiotherapy treatment plans and a psychological treatment plan, and the applicant sought resolution at the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal admitted late-disclosed medical records, finding no actual prejudice to the respondent, and declined to draw an adverse inference from the applicant's refusal to undergo an MRI.

The Tribunal found the physiotherapy plans reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant had been removed from the Minor Injury Guideline and the treatments were supported by medical evidence.

However, the Tribunal denied the disputed psychological services, finding insufficient evidence that the preparation and planning items were not administrative costs already captured by the hourly rate.

The applicant's request for a special award was dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered entitlement to multiple treatment plans for psychological, optometric, dietary, and physical rehabilitation services.

The Tribunal granted the plans for optometric services and a dietary assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence and the applicant's positive response to vision therapy.

The Tribunal denied the remaining plans, including psychological and physical therapy, finding that the applicant either failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, failed to exhaust collateral benefits, or incurred expenses prior to submitting a plan.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, but interest was awarded on overdue benefits.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving escaped cattle.

The court found no evidence of negligence, breach of duty of care, or public nuisance on the part of the defendants.

The decision emphasizes the requirement for the responding party to put their best foot forward on a summary judgment motion and clarifies that the mere escape of a farm animal is insufficient to establish liability without evidence of negligent action or inaction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found she was not entitled to non-earner benefits prior to submitting a completed disability certificate.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to consider the insurer's obligation to communicate the consequences of a delay in submitting the certificate.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-litigate arguments already addressed in the initial decision and failed to establish an error of law or fact under Rule 18.2(b).

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident but failed to submit a completed disability certificate (OCF-3) until July 21, 2023.

The insurer denied the benefit for the period prior to the submission of the OCF-3.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that under section 36 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, no non-earner benefit is payable for any period before the OCF-3 is submitted.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8 of the Schedule, concluding he suffered marked impairments in social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation due to a mental and behavioural disorder.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychiatrist over the respondent's assessor, who failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal approved the majority of the disputed treatment plans, including occupational therapy, chiropractic services, physiotherapy, and a catastrophic assessment, but denied a pharmacotherapy plan for medical cannabis as the requested amount exceeded the applicant's stated needs.

The applicant, who was wheelchair-bound prior to the accident, was struck by a truck and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's injuries were soft tissue in nature and that she failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's medical assessors, concluding that the applicant's ongoing functional limitations were largely attributable to a significant post-accident weight gain and pre-existing conditions rather than the accident.

Claims for physiotherapy, psychological services, occupational therapy, and an award for unreasonably withheld benefits were also dismissed.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding the respondent eligible for funding for an attendant care benefit assessment.

The respondent suffered minor injuries in a motor vehicle accident but was removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing medical condition.

The insurer argued that because the injuries were minor, the respondent was excluded from attendant care assessments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's interpretation that once a claimant is removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing condition, they are no longer subject to the limits for minor injuries, and the test for services becomes what is reasonable and necessary.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits, medical benefits for multiple assessments (physiatry, psychological, chronic pain, nerve conduction, TMJ, and catastrophic impairment), an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, and interest.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the physiatry and chronic pain assessments, as they were reasonable and necessary to investigate her ongoing impairments.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for attendant care benefits and the remaining assessments, finding the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed, as the insurer's conduct was not excessive or unreasonable.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits after being struck by a detached tire while walking.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the applicant had fully recovered from his physical injuries and was engaging in 'learned helplessness'.

The Tribunal denied claims for attendant care, assistive devices, occupational therapy, and chiropractic treatments, noting inconsistencies in the applicant's expert evidence and exaggerated assessment fees.

The claim for non-earner benefits was dismissed as time-barred and substantively unproven.

Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision finding the insured entitled to an attendant care assessment after being removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing condition.

The insurer argued that removal from the MIG did not equate to removal from the definition of a 'minor injury', and thus the insured was still barred from receiving an in-home assessment.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, holding that removal from the MIG removes all its constraints, including limits on goods and services, and that no error of law was made in the original decision.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including assessments, physiotherapy, chiropractic treatment, and case management services.

The respondent removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions but denied the treatment plans as not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the attendant care assessment and physiotherapy were reasonable and necessary, supported by the applicant's ongoing physical impairments and recommendations from treating practitioners.

The claims for a psychological assessment, chiropractic treatment, and case management services were dismissed for lack of persuasive evidence.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding no unreasonable withholding or delay by the respondent.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines (MIG) and denied additional medical benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in fact by not accepting his chronic pain syndrome diagnosis as taking him outside the MIG.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the Tribunal made no significant errors of law or fact.

The Tribunal reasonably relied on medical reports diagnosing soft tissue injuries and the applicant's own admissions, and correctly noted that a chronic pain diagnosis does not automatically remove an insured from the MIG without proof it is separate and distinct from the minor injuries.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision denying entitlement to certain chiropractic services and a psychiatric assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal had denied the chiropractic services because the applicant failed to attend a reasonably requested insurer's examination, triggering a statutory bar to proceeding.

The psychiatric assessment was denied because the expense was incurred before the treatment plan was submitted, contrary to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

On reconsideration, the adjudicator found no significant errors of law or fact in the original decision that would have led to a different result.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision denying entitlement to catastrophic determination assessments on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant argued that under section 25(1) of the Schedule and the FSCO decision in Henderson, the insurer is obligated to pay for the assessments without applying the reasonable and necessary test.

The adjudicator denied the request for reconsideration, finding no significant error of law or fact, and affirmed that entitlement to catastrophic assessments is subject to the reasonableness and necessity test.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision denying her claims for non-earner benefits, chiropractic services, Botox injections, and psychological services following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to apply the correct legal tests, ignored medical evidence, and violated procedural fairness when an adjudicator lost hearing notes.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the original Tribunal correctly applied the test for non-earner benefits, reasonably preferred the insurer's expert evidence regarding the disputed treatment plans, and that the loss of notes did not result in procedural unfairness.

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

The respondent insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's expert reports diagnosing chronic pain and psychological impairments, finding them contradictory to the applicant's own admissions and his family doctor's records.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and several medical and rehabilitation treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to engage in pre-accident activities, albeit with some pain.

Claims for attendant care were denied due to reliability issues with the submitted invoices and the failure to call the applicant's assessing nurse as a witness.

The disputed medical benefits, including chiropractic care, botox injections, and psychological services, were deemed not reasonable and necessary, supported by the respondent's expert assessments and the applicant's own testimony that certain treatments were unhelpful.

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

The respondent insurer denied the claims and argued the applicant was barred from appealing to the Tribunal under s. 55(1)1 of the Schedule for failing to follow the prescribed procedures in s. 32.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided verbal notice of the accident the following day and submitted an OCF-1 within 30 days, satisfying the requirements.

The applicant was not barred from appealing, and the matter was ordered to proceed to a hearing.