Loretta De Thomasis

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including clinical notes and a social worker's assessment, insufficient to establish a psychological condition caused by the accident, noting the symptoms were more likely related to an unrelated chronic health condition.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the claim for a psychological assessment was denied, along with claims for interest and a special award.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to the claimed benefits and removal from the MIG, the Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and a neurological assessment.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the IRB for the claimed period because the disability certificate (OCF-3) was not submitted until after the period had ended, contrary to s. 36(3) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal also denied the neurological assessment, finding insufficient evidence to warrant a neurological investigation, as the family doctor's notes primarily indicated muscular complaints.

Claims for an award and interest were also 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 applicant claimed a psychological impairment warranted removal from the MIG and sought funding for a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found no compelling evidence of an accident-related psychological impairment, noting the applicant only consulted his family doctor once by phone post-accident with no psychological complaints reported.

The Tribunal held the applicant remains within the MIG and dismissed the claims for the assessment, interest, and an award.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits (NEB) and medical benefits for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide evidence comparing his pre- and post-accident activities to establish entitlement to NEB.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as he provided insufficient medical evidence to support his claims of chronic pain and psychological impairment.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plan was denied, and claims for interest and a special award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the applicant was not an 'insured person' under the Schedule.

In a preliminary issue hearing, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant was principally dependent for financial support or care on the named insured or her spouse.

Applying the Miller and Allstate dependency criteria, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to establish that the applicant, who was 19 years old and working at the time, was principally dependent on the named insured or her spouse.

The application was dismissed.

The Plaintiff, Lisa Jagan, sought costs on a full indemnity basis after the Defendant, The Personal Insurance Company, abandoned its summary judgment motion.

The original summary judgment motion was deemed inappropriate by the court due to genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court awarded the Plaintiff partial costs for expert reports and legal fees, finding that while some work would be repurposed, a significant portion was "thrown away" due to the ill-conceived motion.

The court emphasized that costs "thrown away" are generally payable on a full or substantial indemnity basis but must be reasonable and genuinely wasted.

The defendants sought costs personally against the plaintiff's counsel following a mistrial.

The mistrial was declared due to the plaintiff's counsel's failure to disclose a conflict of interest involving her husband's medical assessment company, which retained the plaintiff's expert witnesses and significantly marked up their invoices.

The court found that the counsel's conduct frustrated and interfered with the administration of justice, noting her lack of candour and failure to adhere to representations previously made to the Law Society.

The court ordered the plaintiff's counsel to personally pay the costs of the mistrial.

In a personal injury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought leave to adduce a late-served loss of income expert report.

The court denied leave under Rule 53.08, finding no reasonable explanation for the delay and prejudice to the defendants.

During the trial, a voir dire revealed that the plaintiff's law firm had retained medical experts through an assessment company owned by the spouse of the firm's principal lawyer.

The assessment company had also significantly marked up the expert's invoice.

Finding an egregious and undisclosed conflict of interest that breached the duty of loyalty, the court declared a mistrial.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits and the cost of examinations under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries, including sprains and strains, met the definition of minor injuries.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, concluding that the applicant did not suffer from a psychological impairment that would remove her from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that any pre-existing conditions would prevent her maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and a chronic pain assessment.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome, which removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed physiotherapy treatment plans and the chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary, along with interest on the overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and the cost of a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment as a sales representative.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's chronic pain specialist over the insurer's assessors, finding the applicant's physical and psychological impairments prevented her from meeting the demanding customer service requirements of her job.

The Tribunal awarded the ongoing IRB and approved the chronic pain assessment up to the $2,000 statutory maximum, along with interest on the overdue IRB.

The moving defendant sought summary judgment dismissing a motor vehicle personal injury action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that discoverability could not be fairly determined on the paper record because the issue was intertwined with the plaintiff's actual pain, dysfunction, medical advice, and when a reasonable person would have known a tort action was an appropriate means to seek a remedy.

Applying the summary judgment framework and discoverability principles in the motor vehicle threshold context, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion was therefore dismissed.