Bianca Zimperi

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit, relying on insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant met the test for an IRB, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating physicians and the respondent's own kinesiologist, who found the applicant demonstrated functional limitations below the physical demands of his pre-accident job as a café supervisor.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's other experts, noting inconsistencies in their reasoning.

The applicant was awarded the IRB with interest, but his claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The minor applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident at age three.

The respondent insurer denied benefits because the application (OCF-1) was submitted nearly two years after the accident, outside the timelines in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay, as he was a minor under a legal disability, entirely reliant on his guardians, and his psychological injuries were not immediately apparent.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with his claim.

A case conference was held in a CCAA proceeding, requested by the Purchaser of the Applicants' business, to seek directions on the interpretation of a vesting order concerning a pre-filing personal injury claim.

The parties agreed that any necessary motion for interpretation should be heard by the supervising CCAA court.

They also cooperatively discussed limiting recoveries in the personal injury actions to available general liability insurance proceeds and lifting the stay for that limited purpose, working towards a consent order.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motorcycle accident, claiming entitlement to occupational therapy, chiropractic services, and a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the occupational therapy claim, preferring the respondent's in-person occupational therapy assessment over the applicant's virtual assessment, finding the applicant had achieved maximal recovery and high functionality.

However, the Tribunal granted the claim for chiropractic services, finding that the temporary pain relief it provided constituted a reasonable and necessary expense, despite the respondent's argument that the relief was not permanent.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as abandoned.