Michael Huclack

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal assessed the applicant's impairments under criteria 7 and 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant's whole person impairment rating was 46%, falling short of the 55% threshold required under criterion 7.

Under criterion 8, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim of a marked impairment in social functioning, finding his pre-accident history contradicted the expert's opinion.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claims for the cost of a catastrophic determination assessment, an award for unreasonable delay, and interest, as the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary onus.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer failed to pay the benefit, provide a notice of medical or other reasons for denial, or request further information directly from the applicant within 10 days of receiving the disability certificate, as required by s. 36(4) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that the respondent's failure to comply with s. 36(4) triggered s. 36(6), obligating the respondent to pay the IRB from the date the application was received until proper notice is given.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed due to a failure to disclose particulars.

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

During the hearing, several preliminary motions were heard.

The Tribunal excluded the respondent's late-filed catastrophic assessment reports and denied the applicant's request to add catastrophic determination as an issue.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of improperly redacted log notes, finding that 'client-to-client' discussions did not automatically attract litigation privilege.

The Tribunal awarded $2,000 in costs against the respondent for bad faith conduct in failing to comply with previous production orders and improperly redacting documents.

However, the Tribunal declined to state a case for contempt of court.

Following the denial of an adjournment request, the applicant withdrew her application.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision denying her claims for catastrophic impairment, attendant care, caregiver, medical, and housekeeping benefits following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the Arbitrator provided inadequate reasons, applied incorrect legal tests for burden of proof and causation, and erred in weighing evidence and assessing credibility.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the Arbitrator's reasons were adequate, the correct legal tests were applied, and the credibility findings were supported by ample evidence.

The Arbitrator's decision was confirmed and costs of $3,390 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, attendant care, caregiver, medical, and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to prove her entitlement on a balance of probabilities, noting significant issues with her credibility, evidence of malingering, and a failure to disclose pre-existing medical conditions.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the insurer's medical experts, who concluded that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

All claims for benefits were denied.

The plaintiff insurers alleged a conspiracy to defraud by the defendants involving false medical assessment reports and invoices for statutory accident benefits claimants.

The moving defendants sought directions on producing medical documentation containing personal health information (PHI) of non-party claimants.

The court held that the claimants' consent in the Application for Accident Benefits (OCF-1) was broad enough to permit disclosure in civil litigation.

Furthermore, section 49(1) of the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA) independently permitted the plaintiffs, as recipients, to use and disclose PHI for the action's purposes.

To address privacy concerns, the court directed that PHI be filed separately in a sealed envelope with the presiding judicial officer, not in the public court file.

Following the death of their daughter in a motor vehicle accident, both parents applied for death benefits from the insurer.

The insurer paid the father but denied the mother's claim, arguing the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule only contemplated a single payment.

The motions judge agreed and dismissed the mother's action.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the wording of s. 25(2)5.i. of the Schedule, which provides for payment to 'a person' rather than 'the person', requires the insurer to make separate payments to each person upon whom the deceased was dependent.

The appeal was allowed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits.

He owned a courier service that continued to operate for two months post-accident.

The insurer sought to deduct payments made to the applicant by his business during this period.

The arbitrator found that as the sole proprietor, any money flowing to the applicant from the business qualified as post-accident income under section 15 of the Schedule.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant received $9,130 in post-accident compensation, of which 80% was deductible from his weekly income benefits.