Piera Segreto

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to post-104 income replacement benefits and certain treatment plans.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness by allowing the respondent's experts to testify without producing clinical notes and records, and by denying her the opportunity to cross-examine an adjuster.

The applicant also alleged errors of law and fact regarding the weighing of medical and vocational evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the adjuster was not summoned or listed as a witness, and concluding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the weighing of evidence without demonstrating any actual errors of law or fact.

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

The respondent denied entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) and partially denied treatment plans for a chronic pain assessment and psychological services.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to an IRB for a limited period (March 1, 2023, to November 2, 2023) because she failed to submit an OCF-3 until nearly 124 weeks post-accident, barring her claim for the period prior to submission.

The Tribunal also awarded small unapproved balances for psychological services, finding the requested higher hourly rates for unregulated providers were not justified.

The Tribunal ordered a 35% special award against the respondent for unreasonably withholding the IRB after the OCF-3 was submitted, noting the respondent's failure to respond within the required 10 business days and its withholding of adjuster log notes.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the applicant's claim for post-104 income replacement benefits, finding she did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, noting her post-accident work in creative fields and non-accident-related psychiatric conditions.

The Tribunal also denied claims for a catastrophic impairment assessment balance, physiotherapy, costs, and an award.

However, the Tribunal granted entitlement to a passenger/driver assessment, finding the applicant's driving anxiety was well-documented and a valid driver's license was not a prerequisite for the assessment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for occupational therapy and a driver re-integration assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on independent medical examinations.

The Tribunal found the occupational therapy assessment and a portion of the occupational therapy services were reasonable and necessary, given the applicant's ongoing functional limitations.

However, the in-vehicle driver assessment was denied because the applicant's passenger anxiety had already been diagnosed and could be addressed through previously approved cognitive behavioural therapy.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed, but interest on overdue payments was granted.

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

The insurer initially placed the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) but later removed her.

The applicant sought payment for a partially denied physiotherapy treatment plan, ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs), and an award for unreasonable withholding of benefits.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, ordering payment with interest.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding the applicant's soft tissue injuries did not cause a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her sedentary employment.

The claim for an award was also dismissed.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident where liability had been admitted, the plaintiff recovered damages of $280,525.60.

The parties disputed entitlement to costs in light of competing offers to settle under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the defendant’s offer to settle for $375,000 complied with Rule 49 and triggered the usual cost consequences because the plaintiff obtained a judgment lower than the offer.

The plaintiff was therefore entitled to partial indemnity costs only up to the date of the defendant’s offer, while the defendant was entitled to partial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court reduced both parties’ claimed fees and disbursements as excessive and fixed costs at equivalent amounts, resulting in a full set‑off.

During a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought to qualify a chiropractor as an expert to testify about an in‑home functional assessment.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether the proposed testimony satisfied the admissibility criteria for expert evidence under R. v. Mohan.

The judge found the proposed opinion exceeded the witness’s professional expertise, overlapped with evidence already provided by more qualified medical experts, and largely repeated the plaintiff’s own testimony.

Because the proposed evidence lacked necessity and probative value, the witness was not qualified as an expert.

The ruling emphasizes the trial judge’s gatekeeping role in scrutinizing expert evidence and preventing unnecessary or duplicative expert testimony.

The applicant brought a motion against her former law firm, the third party, seeking an order for the delivery of her accident benefits file to her new counsel.

The third party transferred the file the day before the motion hearing.

The arbitrator found that the third party had unreasonably delayed the transfer of the file, which prejudiced the applicant's ability to prepare for a pre-hearing conference.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant $629.27 for the expenses of the motion and dismissed the third party's claim for expenses.