Alden Dychtenberg

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the respondent insurer.

The respondent stopped IRB payments in August 2022 due to a potential overpayment related to the applicant's receipt of long-term disability benefits.

The parties resolved the quantum of IRBs prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent unreasonably delayed the payment of IRBs by failing to reinstate payments despite having sufficient information and previously agreeing to do so.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a special award of 20% on the IRB payments withheld between August 2022 and January 2024, plus interest.

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

The respondent denied the claims for physiotherapy and massage therapy on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's concussion diagnosis took him out of the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the respondent failed to provide proper medical reasons for denying the treatment plans under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

As a result, the respondent was ordered to pay for the incurred expenses from the 11th business day after receiving the plans until a proper denial is provided, excluding a period of non-compliance with a s. 33 request.

The claims for the treatment plans being reasonable and necessary on their merits were dismissed, as was the claim for a special award.

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

The insurer denied benefits and requested the applicant attend insurer's examinations (IEs) to assess her ongoing entitlement to income replacement benefits.

The applicant failed to attend the IEs, arguing they were not reasonably necessary as her primary injuries were neurological, not physical.

The Tribunal found the IEs were reasonably necessary given the applicant's physical injuries and the physical nature of her pre-accident employment.

As the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her non-attendance, she was barred from proceeding with her application before the Tribunal.

The defendant brought three motions regarding trial consolidation, undertakings, refusals, and production from non-parties in two related motor vehicle accident actions.

The court declined to consolidate the actions but ordered them to be tried together.

The court also ordered the plaintiffs to submit to further examination for discovery regarding a post-discovery photograph and deleted social media/website content related to a potential business.

Additionally, the court ordered the production of a property damage file from a prior accident due to overlapping injuries.

Costs of $3,500 per action were awarded to the defendant.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a non-earner benefit, which the insurer denied due to his failure to attend four requested section 44 insurer examinations.

The insurer brought a preliminary issue motion to stay the arbitration until the applicant attended the examinations.

The arbitrator found that three of the four requested examinations (orthopedic, neurologist, and psychiatric) were reasonably necessary to evaluate the applicant's condition, but a neuropsychological assessment was not.

The arbitration was stayed pending the applicant's attendance at the three approved assessments.