4 total
Application for accident benefits dismissed; applicant failed to prove removal from Minor Injury Guideline or IRB entitlement.
The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs).
The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and gave limited weight to the applicant's psychological assessment due to reliability issues and lack of contemporaneous medical records.
The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove removal from the MIG or a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a chef.
The application was dismissed.
Accident benefits claim dismissed; injuries fell within Minor Injury Guideline and treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied several treatment plans.
The applicant argued his injuries were not minor and that a pre-existing condition from a 2016 accident removed him from the MIG.
The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limit.
The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy, medical services, and assessments were not reasonable and necessary.
Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.
The Court of Appeal upheld a summary judgment dismissing a rear-end collision claim, finding the motion judge properly drew inferences from physical evidence.
The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing his claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.
The motion judge had concluded that the accident was a straightforward rear-end collision and that the appellant, as the rear-ending party, failed to discharge his onus of proving the collision did not arise from his negligence.
The appellant challenged the motion judge's findings on three grounds: improper judicial notice of scientific and technical matters, misapprehension of evidence, and erroneous conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring trial.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment.
Motion for third-party production of police records granted on consent.
The insurer brought a motion for the production of police records in the possession of the Ministry of the Attorney General.
The Ministry consented to the production order subject to certain conditions and redactions.
The arbitrator found that the requirements of Rule 67.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code were met, as the documents were reasonably required to ensure a just and fair hearing.
The motion was granted on consent.
