7 total
Tribunal finds applicant was in an accident; minor inconsistencies in testimony explained by marijuana impairment.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end collision.
The respondent denied benefits and sought repayment of previously paid benefits, alleging the accident was staged and the applicant wilfully misrepresented material facts due to inconsistencies in his testimony.
The Tribunal found that the applicant was involved in an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule, noting that the inconsistencies were minor and plausibly explained by the applicant's admitted marijuana impairment at the time.
The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's claim for repayment, finding no wilful misrepresentation.
Appeal from LAT interlocutory order dismissed for want of jurisdiction as the decision was not final.
The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her motion to add a request for punitive damages to her application for accident benefits.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding that the Tribunal's ruling was not a final decision or order.
The Court emphasized that fragmentation and piecemeal appeals are discouraged in regulatory proceedings, and the appellant must wait until a final decision on the merits before appealing.
Application for accident benefits dismissed and repayment ordered after Tribunal found collision was a staged accident.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle collision.
The respondent insurer denied the claim and sought repayment of benefits paid, arguing the collision was a staged accident and the applicant was not a passenger in the vehicle.
Following a preliminary issue hearing, the Tribunal found the applicant was not involved in an accident within the meaning of s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The Tribunal drew a negative inference from the applicant's failure to call corroborating witnesses and found his testimony inconsistent with documentary evidence, including cell phone records.
The Tribunal concluded the applicant made a willful misrepresentation and ordered him to repay $8,884.29 in benefits to the respondent pursuant to s. 52 of the Schedule.
Applicant deemed catastrophically impaired due to marked impairment in activities of daily living; attendant care awarded.
The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits and cost of examinations following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, specifically a Class 4 Marked impairment in the domain of Activities of Daily Living due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.
The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits at $507.03 per month retroactively to October 2009, along with interest.
The applicant was also awarded the costs of specific occupational therapy and attendant care assessments.
Claims for a triage assessment, a Regulation 664 award, and costs were dismissed.
Accident benefits claims dismissed and repayment ordered after adjudicator finds the motor vehicle accident was staged.
The applicants claimed to have been injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.
The respondent insurer denied the claims, alleging the accident was staged and the applicants wilfully misrepresented material facts.
Following a preliminary issue hearing, the adjudicator found that the applicants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that an accident occurred within the meaning of s. 3(1) of the Schedule.
The adjudicator drew an adverse inference from the failure of key witnesses to testify and noted numerous inconsistencies in the evidence.
Concluding that the accident was staged, the adjudicator ordered the applicants to repay the medical and non-earner benefits they had received, but declined to order repayment of the insurer's adjusting costs.
Successful plaintiff awarded substantial indemnity costs after beating settlement offers.
Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff recovered $794,603 in damages, the court determined the appropriate costs award.
The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs to the date of an offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter under Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The defendants argued the plaintiff’s legal fees and disbursements were excessive, including the use of two senior counsel and multiple expert reports.
The court found the litigation complex and lengthy, noting the plaintiff’s complete success at trial and the defendant’s failure to make reasonable settlement offers.
Applying the discretion under s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 principles, the court fixed costs significantly in favour of the plaintiff while disallowing certain expert disbursements for witnesses not called at trial.
Claim for cost of duplicate kinesiology assessments dismissed as unreasonable under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for the cost of an in-home assessment and a worksite assessment under section 24 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The insurer refused to pay, arguing the assessments duplicated earlier assessments it had arranged under section 42.
The arbitrator found that while the assessments were for the purpose of the Regulation, it was not reasonable to conduct them, as there was no evidence the earlier assessments were inadequate or that the applicant received any benefit from the new ones.
The application for the cost of the assessments was dismissed.
Claims for a special award and an award for a frivolous proceeding were also dismissed.
