Jeremy Hanigan

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits.

The respondent determined the injuries were minor and subject to the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing his pre-existing chronic back pain was aggravated by the accident and he developed chronic pain syndrome, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing condition impeded his recovery within the MIG, nor did he establish he suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment as a result of the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissing the claims for a $2,400 physiotherapy treatment plan and interest.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the insurer's medical and psychological assessments which indicated no functional impairment and no accident-related psychological diagnosis.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to adjourn the trial of a slip and fall action scheduled for March 2026.

The plaintiff, who claimed damages for chronic pain syndrome, failed to produce approximately 400 pages of medical records and update her oral discovery answers until weeks before trial.

The court found that the plaintiff breached her discovery obligations under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

To ensure trial fairness and allow the defendants to respond to the new evidence, the court granted the adjournment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that MRI findings of disc bulges and a diagnosis of sciatica warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a causal link between the accident and the MRI findings or the sciatica.

As the applicant did not meet his burden of proof, he remained subject to the MIG limits, and his claims for physiotherapy treatment plans and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed its claim for repayment of an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law by requiring proof of motive to establish a 'wilful misrepresentation' under section 52 of the Schedule, rather than accepting recklessness.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the original adjudicator engaged in a comprehensive analysis of the insured's circumstances and did not solely rely on motive.

The insurer failed to demonstrate an error of law or fact under Rule 18.2(b) that would warrant reconsideration.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice while clearing snow from her vehicle.

The respondent insurer denied benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Schedule and questioning the applicant's credibility regarding the sequence of events.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's version of events and applied the two-part purpose and causation test.

The Tribunal found that clearing snow is an ordinary use of a vehicle and that the ice was a normal risk, not an intervening cause.

The Tribunal concluded the incident was an 'accident' and ordered the matter to proceed to a hearing on the substantive issues.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to persistent back pain and headaches.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on medical records showing pre-existing back pain and a prior stroke as the cause of the headaches.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plan for chiropractic services was not payable, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a concussion, warranting removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for chiropractic services, a psychological assessment, and a concussion assessment, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $39,942.85 in income replacement benefits (IRB) paid to the respondent, alleging the respondent wilfully misrepresented his pre-accident income on his 2018 tax return.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent's reported income was not in accordance with the facts due to his cash-based business practices, the misrepresentation was not wilful.

The insurer failed to prove the respondent fabricated his income with a conscious wrong or evil purpose to falsely qualify for IRB.

The application for repayment was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding his injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, and denying two treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and breached procedural fairness regarding the insurer's notice obligations under s. 38 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration in part, finding it erred in law by concluding the insurer's denial of a psychological services treatment plan complied with s. 38(9), as the denial failed to state the insurer's belief that the MIG applied.

Consequently, the applicant was entitled to the psychological services under s. 38(11).

The reconsideration was dismissed regarding the chronic pain assessment, as a subsequent compliant denial cured any initial defect.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically a $1,696.00 treatment plan for physiotherapy.

The respondent denied the plan, arguing the applicant sustained minor soft tissue injuries that had healed.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary, preferring the applicant's physiatrist's evidence that the treatment provided pain relief for ongoing musculoskeletal injuries.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the treatment plan plus interest, but declined to order an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 as the applicant provided no submissions to justify it.

The applicant was struck by an ION light rail train and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the train was 'railway rolling stock' and not an 'automobile' under the legislation.

The Tribunal applied consumer protection principles of statutory interpretation and found that the ION train operates similarly to a streetcar, which is expressly exempted from the railway exclusion.

The Tribunal concluded the ION train is an 'automobile' and the incident qualifies as an 'accident', allowing the application to proceed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an incident where he tripped while exiting an Uber.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant was barred from proceeding because he failed to notify them within seven days of the accident, as required by section 32(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant missed the seven-day deadline by notifying the insurer 45 days later, he had a reasonable explanation under section 34.

The applicant was initially uncertain if the incident qualified as an accident and had mistakenly notified a different insurer first.

Given the short delay and lack of prejudice to the insurer, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed.

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

The respondent insurer denied benefits, arguing the applicant failed to notify it of the accident within seven days as required by s. 32(1) of the Schedule, and failed to submit the application within 30 days under s. 32(5).

The Tribunal found that the applicant had informed the insurer of the accident and property damage within seven days, which, following binding Divisional Court authority, was sufficient notice of an intention to seek benefits.

The insurer failed to prove it provided the required application forms, so the 30-day limit under s. 32(5) was not triggered.

The applicant was permitted to proceed to a substantive hearing.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment, meeting the criteria under the AMA Guides, and removed him from the MIG.

However, the applicant failed to provide the treatment plans or sufficient submissions to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The claims for the treatment plans, interest, and an award were dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence supporting chronic pain or psychological conditions and giving limited weight to a late expert report.

As the MIG limit applied, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for an orthopaedic assessment and physiotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting that she did not submit the plans into evidence or provide specific submissions on their goals.

Relying on insurer examination reports which indicated the applicant had uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and was working 13 hours a day without restrictions, the adjudicator dismissed the claims for treatment, interest, and a special award.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish a psychological injury or chronic pain with functional impairment, preferring the respondent's assessments.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's arguments that the respondent's denial notices contravened section 38 of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG limits.

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

The adjudicator found the applicant was barred from pursuing a non-earner benefit because he failed to prove he submitted a disability certificate (OCF-3) within the limitation period.

The applicant was also barred from pursuing three treatment plans because he failed to attend reasonably necessary insurer's examinations without a reasonable explanation.

On the substantive issues, the adjudicator held the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), denying a proposed physiotherapy treatment plan for lack of reasonableness and necessity.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her catastrophic impairment designation and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that the Vice-Chair provided insufficient reasons, relied on issues not raised in the denial letters, denied her procedural fairness, and made unreasonable findings of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding that the Vice-Chair provided comprehensive reasons, properly applied the 'but for' test for causation, afforded procedural fairness, and made reasonable findings based on the evidence.