Haider Bahadur

The defendants requested that the plaintiff's slip and fall action be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed the statement of claim on its face and found it to be a properly drafted pleading that met the requirements of Rule 25.

The request for dismissal was rejected.

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

The Tribunal found the respondent's denial of a $2,198.80 physiotherapy treatment plan failed to comply with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, entitling the applicant to payment for incurred services.

However, the denial of a $2,693.82 occupational therapy assessment was compliant, and the applicant failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal awarded interest on overdue benefits but declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664, finding the benefits were not unreasonably withheld.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for psychological services, arguing the applicant was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that the application was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found the application was filed in time because the deadline fell on a weekend and statutory holiday.

However, the Tribunal held the applicant to the MIG because she failed to provide submissions or evidence to warrant removal.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letter complied with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

As the treatment plan exceeded the MIG limits, it was denied.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for chiropractic services, an attendant care assessment, and physiotherapy.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding on the chiropractic and attendant care claims because she failed to dispute the clear and unequivocal denials within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule, and declined to extend the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

The physiotherapy claim was dismissed as not reasonable and necessary, with the Tribunal finding the respondent's denial complied with s. 38(8).

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant a non-earner benefit (NEB) with interest.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the applicant's non-compliance with a section 33 request for medical documents.

The Adjudicator agreed, finding that the Tribunal failed to apply its own finding that the insurer had cured a deficient section 33 request.

Because the applicant did not comply with the valid section 33 request, the insurer was not liable to pay the NEB during the period of non-compliance.

The reconsideration was granted in part, and the decision was varied to find the applicant not entitled to the NEB or interest.

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

The applicant relied exclusively on procedural arguments, claiming the respondent failed to comply with notice provisions under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant remained in the Minor Injury Guideline and was not entitled to the disputed treatment plan, as he failed to lead substantive evidence and the respondent's notices regarding the treatment plan were compliant.

However, the Tribunal found the respondent's notice requiring an insurer's examination for the non-earner benefit was deficient under section 44(5) of the Schedule.

Consequently, the respondent was ordered to pay the non-earner benefit pursuant to section 36(6).

The claim for an award was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and requested insurer's examinations.

The applicant argued that the respondent's denial notices were procedurally defective under s. 38(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, but made no submissions on the substantive reasonableness or necessity of the treatment.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial notices provided adequate medical and other reasons, complying with the Schedule.

As the applicant failed to establish substantive entitlement to the benefits, the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for psychological services and requested an insurer's examination (IE).

The applicant failed to attend the IE, arguing the respondent's notice was void ab initio for failing to provide medical reasons for the denial under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the respondent's notice complied with the Schedule by citing a lack of compelling evidence that the impairment was outside the Minor Injury Guideline.

As the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for failing to attend the IE, the Tribunal held she was barred from proceeding with the application under s. 55(1)2 of the Schedule.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence that his physical or psychological injuries were non-minor or that pre-existing conditions precluded his recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's insurer's examinations, which concluded the applicant suffered no psychological impairments and only minor physical injuries.

As the MIG limits had been exhausted, the proposed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

The appellant sought to overturn a motion judge's order declining to restore their action to the trial list, dismissing it for delay, and discharging a certificate of pending litigation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusions that the delay in prosecuting the action was entirely the appellant's responsibility, was unexplained, inordinate, and inexcusable.

The court agreed that an inference of prejudice arose from the lengthy delay, jeopardizing the likelihood of a fair trial due to the passage of time, impact on witness memories, and lack of proper discoveries.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff moved to restore its action to the trial list under Rule 48.11, while the defendant cross-moved to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in prosecuting the action since its inception in 2012, and also failed to demonstrate that the defendant would not suffer non-compensable prejudice if the action were restored.

The court drew an adverse inference from the plaintiff's reliance on lawyer affidavits rather than a deponent with direct personal knowledge.

Given the plaintiff's history of contempt findings and failure to pay costs in related litigation, the court concluded the plaintiff lacked good faith in prosecuting the action.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the action for delay was granted, with an order to discharge the certificate of pending litigation.

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

The insurer denied certain medical and rehabilitation benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor, his psychological impairments, including depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms, justified removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for a psychological assessment but denied the claims for physiotherapy treatment, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

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

The respondent insurer denied certain psychological and physiotherapy treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions and accident-related psychological injuries precluded recovery within the MIG limits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of pre-existing conditions or accident-related psychological injuries that would warrant removing the applicant from the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, is subject to the $3,500 funding limit, and is not entitled to the disputed benefits or interest.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations related to general workplace disputes and did not involve claiming or enforcing Code rights.

As the allegations fell outside the scope of section 8, the application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to add new allegations of discrimination based on ethnic origin and race, to add two individual respondents, and for particulars.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding the proposed allegations too vague and unrelated to the original application.

The request to add personal respondents was denied as there was no compelling juridical reason and they had not been served.

The request for particulars was deemed premature.