Daniaal Sibtain

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she sustained a concussion, chronic pain, or a psychological condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit, as she retained the ability to perform self-care and light housekeeping, and therefore did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of $124,474.66 obtained by the plaintiff.

The action arose from a physical altercation between neighbours in an apartment building.

The court found that while one defendant was validly served with the statement of claim, the other was not, and neither was served with the motion for default judgment.

Applying the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment, the court concluded that the interests of justice warranted granting the motion, despite the apparent weakness of the proposed defence.

The default judgment was set aside on the condition that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of $19,131.14 for the default judgment proceedings.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy and a claim for income replacement benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the insurer's expert reports over the applicant's treating physicians due to gaps in treatment and lack of causal connection.

The adjudicator also concluded that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a restaurant manager.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent insurer brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's claims for an income replacement benefit and two treatment plans, arguing they were barred by the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator found that the claim for the income replacement benefit was not barred because the limitation period was suspended by O. Reg. 73/20 (the COVID-19 Limitations Regulation) before the two-year mark.

However, the treatment plans were denied more than two years before the application was filed.

The adjudicator held that the Tribunal does not have the authority under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend limitation periods set out in a regulation such as the Schedule.

Consequently, the applicant was permitted to proceed with the income replacement benefit claim, but the claims for the two treatment plans were dismissed.