Michelle Arzaga

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing depression and anxiety precluded recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's claims of chronic pain with functional impairment and psychological impairment, noting inconsistencies in her reporting and placing little weight on her psychological assessment.

As the MIG limits were already exhausted, the claims for further treatment plans, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing she should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant was diagnosed with chronic pain, she failed to demonstrate the requisite functional impairment, as she continued to work full-time and remained independent in her activities of daily living.

The Tribunal also found insufficient medical evidence to support an accident-related psychological injury.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the MIG, and her claims for treatment plans outside the MIG limit, along with claims for interest and an award, were dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied due to a lack of supporting particulars.

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 argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain and that the evidence did not support a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and he remained subject to the MIG limit.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans and assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including reports from a chiropractor and a psychological assessment, lacked weight and corroboration.

Relying on the respondent's insurer's examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a psychological impairment or meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain with functional impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

The applicant, a minor, sought court approval under Rule 7.08 for a $22,500 full and final settlement of her statutory accident benefits claim with the respondent insurer.

The minor sustained physical and severe psychological injuries after being struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian.

The court adjourned the application, finding the evidentiary record insufficient to determine whether the settlement was fair and reasonable, particularly regarding whether the minor's psychological injuries might meet the threshold for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The applicant sought an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal declaring her entitlement to income replacement benefits, despite the respondent insurer having already reinstated the benefits and paid all arrears prior to the hearing.

The applicant argued the order was necessary to secure procedural protections under s. 281 of the Insurance Act.

The Tribunal found it retained jurisdiction because a dispute existed when the application was filed.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for declaratory relief, concluding that issuing an order where the dispute had already been resolved by concession would be a misapplication of resources.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which held that the insurer must fund a catastrophic impairment assessment in addition to the $50,000 limit for medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer argued that the Adjudicator made a significant error of law in interpreting sections 18 and 25 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no significant error of law and agreeing that catastrophic impairment assessments are not included in the $50,000 medical benefit limit.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and a co-defendant's crossclaim in a motor vehicle personal injury action.

The moving parties relied on an expert report attached to an affidavit from an associate lawyer.

The court gave no weight to the expert report because it was provided via information and belief, depriving the responding parties of the opportunity to cross-examine the expert.

Finding three conflicting accounts of the accident and substantial issues of credibility and reliability, the court concluded there were genuine issues requiring a trial and dismissed the motion.

The applicant sought funding for a multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessment after exhausting the $50,000 non-catastrophic limit for medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan, arguing that the non-catastrophic limit applied and that sufficient medical documentation already existed.

The Tribunal held that the cost of catastrophic assessments is not subject to the $50,000 non-catastrophic limit under section 18(3) of the Schedule, but rather falls under section 25.

The Tribunal found the requested assessments reasonable and necessary, but denied the separate fees for file and medical document review, finding them to be an inherent component of the assessments subject to the $2,000 cap per assessment.

The plaintiff was seriously injured when attacked by a rival gang member in a provincial jail.

The plaintiff sued Ontario and others, alleging that a correctional officer was negligent in placing the plaintiff and the assailant in the same unit despite the jail's policy of separating members of the same gang.

The trial judge found for the plaintiff.

On appeal, Ontario argued that the policy negated any duty of care and that the trial judge erred in applying the standard of care and finding causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the policy did not negate the common law duty of care, that the correctional officer breached the standard of care by failing to consider inmate incompatibility, and that the negligence caused the plaintiff's injuries.

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

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the applicant failed to attend, and his counsel successfully moved to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The hearing was adjourned, and the applicant was notified but failed to respond or attend the rescheduled hearing.

The insurer moved to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator granted the motion, dismissing the application for arbitration due to the applicant's failure to attend and pursue the claim, and awarded the insurer $2,000 in expenses.

The plaintiff, an inmate and member of the Malvern Crew street gang, was severely beaten by a rival gang member while housed at the Don Jail.

He sued the Crown in negligence for placing him in the same unit as the rival gang member.

The court found that the Crown owed a duty of care and breached it by failing to consider inmate compatibility when applying its numeric balancing policy for housing gang members.

The Crown knew or ought to have known of the severe security threat posed by the rival gang member.

The court found the Crown liable for the assault, but reduced the damages by 15% due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence in failing to request protective custody.