Peter Galway

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for attendant care benefits and various treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Vice-Chair found that the original adjudicator committed a material breach of procedural fairness by striking pages of the applicant's submissions without analyzing the prejudicial impact.

The decision was cancelled and reheard.

On rehearing, the Vice-Chair granted the applicant's claim for attendant care benefits at $2,257.09 per month, preferring the evidence of the applicant's occupational therapist.

However, the claims for the disputed treatment plans were dismissed as the applicant failed to draw specific connections to the medical evidence to show they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that found her application for accident benefits statute-barred due to a failure to notify the insurer in time.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration, finding it had committed a material breach of procedural fairness by focusing on the applicant's notice to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund rather than the respondent insurer, Allstate.

Upon reconsidering the merits, the Tribunal found that the applicant, who was struck as a pedestrian by an initially unidentified motorist, had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in notifying Allstate.

The applicant took extensive steps over three years to identify the motorist and the insurer, and notified Allstate within days of identifying it.

The previous decision was cancelled, and the matter was ordered to proceed to a hearing on the substantive issues.

The applicant was struck by an unidentified vehicle in November 2018 but did not notify the respondent insurer until February 2022.

The respondent denied the claim for accident benefits on the basis that the applicant failed to provide notice within 7 days as required by section 32(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not have a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting she could have notified the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund much earlier, as she had retained counsel and reported the accident to healthcare providers shortly after it occurred.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

Third parties brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a defendant’s third party claim and crossclaims arising from injuries sustained during an assault after a community festival where alcohol was served.

The moving parties argued there was no evidence establishing their liability for allegedly serving alcohol to an intoxicated attendee who later committed the assault.

The court held that granting summary judgment would require determinations overlapping with issues scheduled for trial and could create inconsistent factual findings.

The matter also raised a potentially novel duty of care question regarding volunteers organizing events where alcohol is served.

The court concluded that summary judgment was not the most appropriate or just procedure.