Norma Barron

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Schedule following a 2022 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing her impairments stemmed from pre-existing conditions, including a prior accident and childhood trauma.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and found that the 2022 accident exacerbated her pre-existing psychological issues, resulting in marked impairments in activities of daily living, social functioning, and adaptation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts and found she met the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

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

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

Consequently, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet their onus to demonstrate entitlement to the disputed benefits or removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the claims for non-earner benefits and various treatment plans.

The applicant applied to the Tribunal more than two years after receiving the denial notices.

The Tribunal found that the denial notices were clear and unequivocal, satisfying the requirements to trigger the limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

Consequently, the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with her claims.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline, as she failed to provide compelling evidence of a psychological impairment or pre-existing condition that would warrant removal from the guideline.

The claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRB), attendant care benefits (ACB), and various treatment plans following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criterion 7, concluding his combined physical and mental impairment rating was 40%.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, dismissing the claim for post-104-week IRB.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and had exhausted non-catastrophic limits, the claims for ACB and treatment plans were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans and a non-earner benefit, arguing the applicant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment that would remove her from the MIG, preferring the respondent's expert evidence due to the applicant's inconsistent self-reports.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued her injuries were outside the MIG due to chronic pain syndrome and pre-existing medical conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her chronic pain caused functional impairment or disability beyond the sequelae of soft tissue injuries.

Furthermore, there was no compelling evidence that her pre-existing conditions would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG limit.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy treatment and a functional abilities evaluation following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery, as her self-reported pain had not improved with previous treatments.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant had returned to her pre-accident employment and was functional, rendering the functional abilities evaluation unnecessary.

The claims for medical benefits, cost of examination, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The plaintiff was bitten in the face by a dog owned by the defendants.

The defendants were noted in default, and the matter proceeded as an undefended trial on affidavit evidence to assess damages.

The court awarded the plaintiff $37,500 in general damages for physical scarring and psychological trauma, $2,500 for future psychological care, and $5,461.43 for the OHIP subrogated claim.

The plaintiff's parents were each awarded $5,000 under the Family Law Act for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

Costs were fixed at $16,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

Aviva requested a reconsideration of an Adjudicator's decision that awarded the applicant the full cost of disputed treatment plans plus interest and a 25% special award for unreasonable delay.

Aviva argued that the Adjudicator erred by not applying a credit for money already paid prior to the hearing and by granting the special award on insufficient evidence.

The Adjudicator conducting the reconsideration dismissed the request, finding no significant error of law.

The original Adjudicator correctly applied the interest provisions and reasonably concluded that Aviva's delay in paying the benefits after receiving all necessary information was unreasonable, justifying the 25% special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including physiotherapy, massage therapy, and psychotherapy.

The insurer initially denied the treatment plans but paid a portion of the incurred amounts on the eve of its written submissions.

The Tribunal found all six disputed treatment plans to be reasonable and necessary for treating the applicant's chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal also found that the insurer unreasonably delayed payment of the benefits after receiving sufficient medical information, and ordered a special award of 25% of the initial claim value, plus interest.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as surveillance and medical evidence showed she retained significant functional abilities.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and she failed to prove a pre-existing medical condition that would exempt her from the MIG cap.

As the $3,500 cap was exhausted, the claims for additional medical benefits and examination costs were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for relief from the deemed undertaking under Rule 30.1.01(8) to use portions of the plaintiff's examination for discovery transcript from the civil action in a related statutory accident benefits (SABS) claim before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The plaintiff argued the court lacked jurisdiction and that the LAT should decide the issue.

The court held it had jurisdiction to waive the deemed undertaking, leaving admissibility to the LAT.

The court granted the motion, finding the interest of justice outweighed any prejudice because the plaintiff had consented to the defendants' counsel acting in both proceedings and knew Canada Post was the sole decision-maker for both claims.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing her motion to substitute a named individual for a 'John Doe' defendant on the basis of misnomer, or alternatively to add the individual after the expiry of the limitation period.

The appellant had the vehicle's license plate number since the motor vehicle accident but did not identify the owner until after the limitation period expired.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Master's conclusion that this was not a classic misnomer and that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence to discover the defendant's identity.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant failed to maintain contact with her counsel and did not attend the arbitration pre-hearing.

Her counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record, and the insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application for arbitration with costs.

The arbitrator granted both motions, removing counsel from the record and dismissing the application as frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith due to the applicant's failure to participate.

The applicant was ordered to pay $500 in costs to the insurer.