Jasmina Mrkalj-Skelly

The self-represented applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed his claim for accident benefits for medical cannabis and awarded costs to the respondent.

The applicant filed the request form but failed to provide any submissions explaining how the decision met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant had not met his burden to establish grounds for reconsideration.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a full-thickness shoulder tear, concussion, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the contemporaneous medical evidence, including initial hospital records, supported a diagnosis of minor injuries such as whiplash.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove the shoulder tear or psychological impairments were caused by the accident, noting surveillance evidence of an active lifestyle.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plan or interest.

The self-represented applicant sought statutory accident benefits for medical cannabis and form completion expenses following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims, finding no evidence that the cannabis treatment was recommended by a health care professional or related to the accident, and noting the applicant had fraudulently completed the forms himself.

The Tribunal awarded $2,500 in costs to the respondent insurer due to the applicant's bad faith conduct, including his repeated failure to attend insurer examinations and manipulation of evidence.

Jake Rowntree brought two motions for summary judgment to dismiss negligence and occupiers liability claims against him arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The claims stemmed from an incident where Regan Brennan, who had alcohol addiction issues, consumed Rowntree's alcohol without permission at his residence and was subsequently asked to leave, later being involved in an accident while intoxicated.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motions, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial due to the absence of crucial evidence from a key witness, Jeff Mailoux, which prevented a fair and just determination of foreseeability and proximity for a duty of care.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the Insurer, including a declaration of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits, and medical benefits.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered a mental disorder but did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, as he did not have a marked impairment in any of the four domains of functioning.

However, the arbitrator concluded that the Applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment and a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited, entitling him to IRBs.

The claims for attendant care benefits, medical benefits, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal anonymize her Application, which alleged discrimination based on sex, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.

The respondents took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the allegations of sexual assault constituted an exceptional situation warranting a departure from the open court principle.

The applicant's request to amend the monetary remedy sought was deferred to the adjudicator assigned to the merits hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for arbitration after the insurer denied a treatment plan.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application because the applicant failed to participate in the arbitration process, including missing two pre-hearings and the motion hearing itself.

The arbitrator dismissed the application due to insufficient evidence and the applicant's failure to participate in any meaningful manner.

The insurer was awarded $350 in expenses.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action for statutory accident benefits arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff sought non-earner benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule but had not submitted a timely application for benefits and did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay of several years.

The court found that the insurer had provided the appropriate accident benefits package and repeatedly advised the plaintiff and his counsel of the need to submit an application.

The evidence demonstrated that no application for benefits was made within the statutory timelines and that the plaintiff lacked any reasonable explanation under the SABS for the delay.

The court held that the insurer suffered prejudice due to the inability to investigate the claim years later and granted summary judgment dismissing the action.