Anne Fyfe

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment (CAT) due to psychological injuries, including PTSD and a relapse of Major Depressive Disorder.

The respondent denied the CAT designation based on its assessors' conclusions that the applicant suffered only moderate impairments.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's assessors, finding that the respondent's psychiatric assessment lacked thoroughness and failed to properly consider the applicant's reduced functioning in activities of daily living.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant sustained a Class 4 (marked) impairment in at least one area of functioning and therefore met the definition of catastrophic impairment under the Schedule.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to anonymize her name and limit public access to the adjudicative records due to the sensitive nature of her mental health information.

The plaintiff sued the tenants and the landlord of a residential property after slipping and falling on an allegedly icy porch.

The tenant defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and the landlord's crossclaim against them, arguing the landlord was solely responsible for snow and ice maintenance under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The plaintiff did not participate in the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it was not an appropriate case for partial summary judgment as the plaintiff's allegations went beyond ice and snow, and the moving parties failed to discharge their evidentiary burden to show there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, medical benefits for transportation, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed that chronic pain completely prevented him from engaging in his pre-accident activities.

The respondent relied on surveillance evidence showing the applicant working as a pizza delivery driver and engaging in strenuous physical activity, as well as medical assessments indicating normal objective findings.

The Tribunal found the applicant's subjective reports of pain lacked credibility and were contradicted by the surveillance and objective medical evidence.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The insurer denied various benefits, and the applicant applied for arbitration.

The applicant failed to attend the pre-hearing and the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator proceeded in the applicant's absence.

The applicant failed to meet the burden of proof to establish entitlement to benefits.

The claims were dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses of the arbitration fixed at $1,500.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After the applicant's legal counsel withdrew due to an inability to communicate with the applicant, the insurer requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The applicant subsequently contacted the insurer and the parties agreed to a dismissal of the application on a without costs basis.

The arbitrator dismissed the application on consent.