Egidio Stagnitta

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

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

The applicant sought removal from the MIG based on chronic pain, pre-existing conditions including gout and hypertension, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to establish that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessments.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and the application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal denied the non-earner benefit, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal approved two physiotherapy treatment plans and a psychotherapy treatment plan, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

A chronic pain treatment plan was denied as the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain with functional limitations.

The Tribunal also ordered a 15% award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by ignoring its own assessor's diagnosis and inflexibly dismissing a treatment plan over a signature issue.

The applicant sought post-104 week income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant did not meet the complete inability test.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment or self-employment for which she was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's pre-existing health issues and failure to address causation regarding a subsequent accident.

The medical evidence provided did not sufficiently address the complete inability test.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant security company after allegedly being struck by a bouncer.

At a status hearing, the defendant requested that the action be dismissed for delay.

The court found that the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, which was largely caused by the defendant's desire to locate a third party before scheduling examinations for discovery.

The court also found that the defendant would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The request to dismiss the action was denied, a timetable was set, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and previously found entitled to income replacement benefits.

In this continuation of the arbitration, the arbitrator calculated the benefits owing at $3,082.60.

The insurer sought expenses against the applicant for a prior adjournment caused by the applicant's former counsel failing to summons a key witness.

The arbitrator denied the insurer's request for adjournment expenses, finding that the insurer engaged in sharp practice by unilaterally dropping its claim against the former counsel without notice, thereby prejudicing the applicant's ability to seek indemnity.

Both parties were ordered to bear their own expenses for the arbitration.