Jonathan Burton

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and received an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB).

The respondent insurer sought repayment of $101,571.44, alleging the applicant willfully misrepresented his functional abilities and receipt of collateral disability benefits.

The Tribunal found no willful misrepresentation regarding functional abilities or CPP disability benefits, but found the applicant willfully misrepresented his receipt of $43,400 in disability income from RBC Insurance.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $27,000 of the IRB, representing the overlapping period, plus interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) for both the pre-104 and post-104 week periods, as well as approval for two physiotherapy treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment, noting inconsistencies between her reported inability to work and her financial records showing continued income.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to meet the stricter post-104 week IRB test.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not prove the disputed physiotherapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, with no entitlement to interest or a special award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for assistive devices and laser foot therapy under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary and were related to pre-existing conditions rather than the accident.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and found that the applicant failed to prove the requested treatments and devices were required due to accident-related impairments.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's mobility and balance issues were pre-existing, and the foot numbness was related to prior chemotherapy.

The application was dismissed.

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

During the pendency of the arbitration, the applicant passed away.

Over two years later, no estate trustee had been appointed.

The applicant's representative sought an adjournment, which the insurer opposed.

The arbitrator denied the adjournment, noting that the family had not acted to appoint an estate trustee and an adjournment would serve no useful purpose.

As there was no one to instruct the representative and no evidence to present, the application for arbitration was dismissed.

No expenses were ordered.