Mannaneh Duval

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

The respondent insurer denied funding for psychological assessments and treatment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injuries Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from a psychological injury, specifically a situational phobia related to driving and being a passenger, which warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the insurer's expert, noting the former's reliance on thorough psychometric testing.

The disputed treatment plans for psychological services were deemed reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on the incurred assessment cost but not on the un-incurred treatment plan.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought statutory accident benefits for physical and psychological injuries.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were uncomplicated soft-tissue sprains and strains, and that she failed to prove a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG, noting her quick return to work and lack of contemporaneous complaints to her family physician.

Consequently, the disputed treatment and assessment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the action from the Durham Region (Oshawa) to the Toronto Region, arguing the motor vehicle collision occurred in Toronto.

The plaintiffs opposed, asserting that Oshawa was a more convenient venue, particularly due to one plaintiff's limited mobility and proximity to Oshawa.

The court applied Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the plaintiff's prima facie right to choose venue and the moving party's burden to demonstrate that the proposed venue is "significantly better." The motion was dismissed as the defendant failed to satisfy this burden, especially considering the potential hardship to the plaintiff.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and attendant care benefits from the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, who was self-employed in a physically demanding construction job, suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, relying on the respondent's own physiotherapist's assessment.

The Tribunal awarded IRBs at $400.00 per week and attendant care benefits based on the Form 1 hourly rate, along with interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After the applicant failed to attend a pre-hearing conference and could not be reached by his counsel despite multiple attempts, his counsel requested to be removed from the record.

The insurer consented to the removal.

The arbitrator granted the request to remove counsel and, pursuant to Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, dismissed the application for arbitration due to the applicant's continued non-attendance.