Domenic D. Nicassio

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

The insurer denied benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline and scheduled multiple s. 44 insurer's examinations, which the applicant failed to attend.

The insurer sought to dismiss the application under s. 55 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal held that the applicant could proceed with claims related to the MIG, a chronic pain assessment, and chiropractic treatment because he had attended the relevant physiatry examination.

However, the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with his income replacement benefit claim due to his failure to attend reasonably necessary psychological and neurological examinations without a valid excuse.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to physical therapy, chiropractic treatment, and various examination expenses.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery from facility-based treatment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant sustained soft tissue injuries from the accident, the requested physical treatments and examination expenses were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's medical examiner over the applicant's psychologists regarding physical impairments.

The application was dismissed.

The insurer brought a motion to compel a non-party employer, #1 Halal Pizza, to produce the applicant's employment file.

The applicant did not oppose the motion.

The arbitrator found that the employment file was reasonably required to ensure a just and fair hearing, that reasonable efforts had been made to obtain it, and that the employer had failed to respond despite having a reasonable opportunity.

The motion was granted, and the insurer was permitted to rely on the documents even if produced after the standard deadlines.

The plaintiff sought costs after successfully defending two motions by the defendants that attempted to restrain her from filing further requests to admit.

The plaintiff claimed approximately $62,895 in legal fees and disbursements and had made a Rule 49 offer to settle costs for $33,000 all-inclusive.

The defendants argued the claim was disproportionate to the nature of the motions and proposed significantly lower amounts.

Applying the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the claimed time and assistant billing rate excessive.

Costs were reduced and fixed at $20,000 all-inclusive.