Faiza Ikram

The applicant and the respondent insurer, Aviva, both requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The applicant alleged procedural fairness breaches and errors of law regarding the denial of attendant care benefits and the reliance on an untested expert report.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request, finding no procedural unfairness as the applicant had not properly summonsed the expert, and no error in the adjudicator's requirement for detailed invoices to prove expenses were incurred.

Aviva's request for reconsideration was granted in part to correct a mathematical error in the calculation of a bad faith award, reducing the quantum to $7,263.45.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, meal preparation and delivery services, a visual skills assessment, and nutrition counselling.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's occupational therapy assessment over the applicant's regarding attendant care, finding the applicant could safely feed herself.

The Tribunal also held that the cost of food and nutritional supplements are not payable as medical or rehabilitation benefits under the Schedule, and that meal preparation is exclusively an attendant care benefit.

Claims for a visual skills assessment and further nutrition counselling were also dismissed as not reasonable or necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries, including chronic pain, warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent insurer denied the claims, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue sprains and strains.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment, noting his continued ability to work, lack of reliance on prescription medication, and inconsistent medical records.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG, dismissing his claims for a psychological assessment, physiotherapy services, and interest.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether arbitrators may order a higher-priority automobile insurer to reimburse a lower-priority insurer for pre-arbitration expenses incurred in handling a Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) claim, outside the specific circumstances set out in Ontario Regulation 283/95.

The court held that, except in cases of improper deflection as provided in s. 2.1(7) of the regulation, arbitrators do not have authority to order such reimbursement.

The appeal was allowed, restoring the arbitrator’s decision that Unifund was not required to reimburse Echelon for its pre-arbitration expenses.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic services and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent denied the treatment plans.

The applicant argued the denials were improper under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, but the Tribunal found the respondent replied within the required 10 business days.

The Tribunal held the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting significant gaps in seeking medical attention and a failure to link the reported pain directly to the accident.

The application was dismissed, and claims for an award and interest were denied.

The appellant, who was deemed catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing his claim for attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT Vice-Chair erred in law by providing inadequate, conclusory reasons and conflating the test for 'reasonable and necessary' expenses with procedural non-compliance.

The court set aside the LAT decision and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the application, finding that the applicant ought to have pursued a statutory appeal under s. 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, which limits appeals to questions of law.

The court held there were no exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the statutory appeal mechanism and declined to convert the application into an appeal.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to the applicant seeking an extension of time to pursue a statutory appeal.