Alexandra Wilkins

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

The insurer denied benefits and scheduled insurer's examinations under s. 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant refused to attend the examinations, arguing it was improper to schedule them after the Tribunal application had been filed.

The Tribunal found that the insurer had properly scheduled the examinations and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her non-attendance.

Consequently, pursuant to s. 55(1)2 of the Schedule, the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence, including clinical notes and psychological assessments, did not support removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial notices complied with section 38 of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and ambulance services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that the ambulance fee had not been submitted to the applicant's extended health care provider.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the physiotherapy treatments were reasonable and necessary, accepting the respondent's physiatrist report that the injuries were minor.

The Tribunal also denied the ambulance fee because the applicant did not prove it was submitted to his collateral benefits provider.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued her injuries were outside the MIG due to chronic pain syndrome and pre-existing medical conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her chronic pain caused functional impairment or disability beyond the sequelae of soft tissue injuries.

Furthermore, there was no compelling evidence that her pre-existing conditions would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG limit.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an incident in a gym parking lot where he was involved in a physical altercation with the gym manager.

The applicant alleged he was pushed into his vehicle and sustained injuries.

The Tribunal held a preliminary issue hearing to determine if the incident met the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Applying the two-part purpose and causation test, the Tribunal found that the assault was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The incident did not arise out of the ordinary use or operation of an automobile, and the vehicle was not the direct cause of the injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant subcontractor appealed a Small Claims Court judgment dismissing its claim for breach of contract and granting the respondent's counterclaim for damages caused by roof leaks.

The appellant raised issues regarding contract terms, mitigation, a settlement agreement, causation of the leaks, and the award of damages.

The Divisional Court applied the Housen standard of review and found no palpable and overriding errors in the Deputy Judge's findings of mixed fact and law.

The appeal was dismissed, though a calculation error in the damages award was corrected.

The respondent was injured when he tripped over a motorcycle parked on a walkway between trailers at a campsite.

The appellant insurer denied statutory accident benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The application judge found that the temporary parking of the motorcycle constituted an ordinary or well-known use of the vehicle, satisfying the purpose test.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that parking a vehicle is an ordinary and well-known activity to which vehicles are put, and dismissed the appeal.