Danielle Malone

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $41,567.76 in income replacement benefits paid to the respondent, alleging wilful misrepresentation of his post-accident income.

The respondent failed to disclose his self-employment income from an insurance agency while collecting benefits and did not participate in the Tribunal proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the respondent wilfully misrepresented his income and ordered repayment of the full amount plus interest.

The applicant's request for costs was denied, as the respondent's failure to participate did not constitute bad faith conduct within the Tribunal process itself.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological impairment (PTSD) as a result of the accident, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the proposed treatment plan for a psychological assessment to be reasonable and necessary, and awarded interest on overdue benefits.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a non-earner benefit (NEB) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to submit a Disability Certificate (OCF-3) within the required timeframe and provided no reasonable explanation for the delay, barring entitlement for the initial period.

For the subsequent period, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as the evidence showed he could still perform the majority of his pre-accident activities, and his impairments were largely attributable to prior accidents.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB) and payment for multiple treatment plans following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's entitlement to a NEB was not triggered because he failed to submit a completed disability certificate within the required 104-week timeframe and did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports which concluded the requested psychological, chronic pain, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy services were not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit was exhausted.

The applicant argued he suffered a psychological impairment outside the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical records did not establish a causal link between his psychological symptoms and the accident, and noted his symptoms were improving.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, subject to the MIG limit, and dismissed the application for further medical benefits and interest.

The applicant and respondents were involved in a long-standing dispute over a Joint Venture Agreement for a gas bar on a First Nation.

The respondents brought pre-hearing motions to bifurcate the hearing to address the Indian Act issue first, for interim possession of the business, and for the return of $15,000 paid into court as security for costs.

The applicant brought a motion to call oral evidence at the hearing.

The court denied the bifurcation and interim possession motions, granted the motion to call oral evidence, and ordered the return of the $15,000 to the respondent.

The applicant was injured when a motorist deliberately hit her with his car door during a parking dispute, and then exited the vehicle to punch her in the face.

The respondent insurer accepted that the first phase (the car door strike) was an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, but denied benefits for impairments related to the subsequent punches, arguing they resulted from a separate assault.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the incident could not be neatly divided into two phases.

Applying the Greenhalgh test, the Tribunal concluded that the use or operation of the motor vehicle was a direct cause of the applicant's impairments, satisfying the definition of an accident under section 3(1) of the Schedule.