Michelle T. Friedman

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that his injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), thereby capping his accident benefits at $3,500.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated natural justice and erred in law by preferring the insurer's psychological report, refusing to take judicial notice of changes in the DSM regarding chronic pain, and failing to properly consider his physical functional limitations and pre-existing injuries.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no bias in the Tribunal's preference for the more recent psychological report and no error in requiring evidentiary proof rather than taking judicial notice of complex medical diagnoses.

The Chair also upheld the Tribunal's findings that the applicant failed to prove his physical limitations and pre-existing conditions exempted him from the MIG.

The applicant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision denying her request for an adjournment of her hearing.

The applicant argued the adjournment was necessary to obtain reports from recent medical examinations.

The Executive Chair denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant had since received the multidisciplinary report containing the findings from those examinations, and therefore the matter should proceed as scheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and sex, approximately two years after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay in filing was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to health issues, family responsibilities, ongoing severance negotiations, ignorance of the limitation period, and fear of reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had retained counsel and raised Code-related issues within the limitation period, and failed to establish that her disability or other factors directly impeded her ability to file a timely application.

The application was dismissed as out of time.