Jacqueline Fortner

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident where he claimed to be a pedestrian struck by a reversing vehicle.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing there was no evidence the applicant was involved in the accident.

The Tribunal found that the police reports and the statement of the applicant's fiancé, who was also struck, did not mention the applicant's presence or involvement.

Furthermore, the medical evidence did not support his involvement in the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was involved in an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule, and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming the balance of six treatment plans for chiropractic services and seasonal home maintenance expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the disputed balance for the treatment plans related to personal protective equipment (gloves), which is an administrative expense that cannot exceed the maximum hourly rate under the Professional Services Guideline.

The Tribunal also denied the home maintenance expenses because the applicant had not sustained a catastrophic impairment and had not purchased the optional benefit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent argued the application was barred because the parties had executed a full-and-final settlement in November 2016.

The applicant contended he lacked the mental capacity to enter into the settlement agreement at that time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's contemporaneous academic records and cognitive test scores demonstrated he had the capacity to understand the agreement and instruct counsel.

The Tribunal held the settlement was valid and dismissed the application pursuant to s. 9.1(8) of Regulation 664.

The minor plaintiff was struck by a vehicle and sustained non-catastrophic injuries, including a head injury that largely resolved.

The plaintiff, through his litigation guardian, brought a motion under Rule 7 to approve a $20,000 settlement.

The court reviewed updated medical evidence confirming the minor's recovery and found the settlement, along with the proposed contingency fees and disbursements, to be fair and reasonable.

The motion was granted and the settlement was approved.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by a hospital and two doctors regarding the treatment of her son in 2011, and alleging she lost her job in 2016 due to a disability caused by one of the respondents.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no good faith reason for the five-year delay in filing the application regarding the 2011 events, noting the applicant had pursued other proceedings during that time.

The Tribunal also dismissed the employment allegation as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the respondent doctor was not the applicant's employer.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.