Davide V. Cortinovis

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denying her disputed treatment plans.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding it was filed 17 days past the 21-day deadline without a valid explanation.

Furthermore, the adjudicator refused to admit a new rebuttal report from the applicant's specialist, noting it could have been obtained prior to the initial hearing and its admission would be procedurally unfair.

Finally, the adjudicator found no error of law or fact in the original causation analysis.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying him an income replacement benefit.

He argued the Tribunal erred in law by improperly applying the but-for test and erred in fact by placing too much weight on his pre-existing condition rather than his experts' opinions regarding his chronic pain syndrome.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the but-for test was properly applied to determine causation and that the weighing of evidence was within the hearing adjudicator's prerogative.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and chiropractic services.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and she had exhausted the $3,500 funding limit.

The applicant argued her pre-existing back and shoulder conditions were exacerbated, precluding recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal found no compelling evidence that the pre-existing conditions were exacerbated by the accident or prevented recovery.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's medical examination report over the applicant's orthopaedic assessment, which was historically inaccurate.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a minor injury, had exhausted her MIG funding, and was not entitled to the disputed benefits or interest.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $400 per week following a motor vehicle accident, claiming psychological and physical impairments prevented him from performing his essential tasks as an AutoCAD technician.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant returned to work immediately, was terminated for being a poor fit, and lacked objective medical evidence of disability.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous, objective medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment tasks during the disputed period.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denying his claim for income replacement benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator failed to properly consider medical evidence and pre-existing conditions.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact in the original decision.

The adjudicator had properly weighed the evidence and the applicant was attempting to reargue his case, which is not permitted on reconsideration.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant entitled to pre- and post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs) due to psychological injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by misapplying the IRB tests and misinterpreting the medical evidence, particularly given the applicant's non-disclosure of marital issues to assessors.

The Vice Chair denied the reconsideration request, finding that the Tribunal correctly applied the legal tests and that its conclusions regarding the applicant's complete inability to work were well-supported by the psychological evidence.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated IRBs after 104 weeks, arguing the applicant did not meet the test for complete inability to work.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant failed to prove physical impairment, he successfully established that his psychological impairments, caused by the accident, rendered him completely unable to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal awarded IRBs from November 15, 2015, ongoing, with interest.

The respondent's request for costs was denied.

Following competing motions for security for costs, the court ordered the plaintiff to post security and dismissed the plaintiff’s own motion for security.

The defendants sought costs of $18,618.92 while the plaintiff argued the amount should be reduced due to duplication of effort after the defendants changed counsel and allegedly excessive preparation and travel charges.

Applying the discretionary principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized proportionality, fairness, and reasonableness in fixing costs.

The court found some duplication attributable to the change of counsel and considered the limited scope of the half‑day motion.

Costs were fixed at $14,000 all inclusive payable by the plaintiff.