Rita Margaret Gratsias

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that denied his claim for income replacement benefits (IRB) and an award.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator made errors of law and fact, violated procedural fairness, and acted outside their jurisdiction.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding no errors in the original decision's assessment of the evidence, including the applicant's return to work and medical reports.

The Vice Chair also declined to award costs to the respondent, as the applicant's conduct did not meet the threshold for a costs award.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments prevented him from working as a carpenter and security guard.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient medical evidence to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employments.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's experts because they were not informed of his second job as a security guard and relied on incomplete documentation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors and noted surveillance and employment records contradicted the applicant's testimony.

Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for approval of a proposed settlement on behalf of a minor injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to determine whether the settlement was in the minor's best interest, noting missing information regarding liability, the minor's medical prognosis, the breakdown of the settlement amount, and legal fees.

The court directed the moving party to provide additional materials within 60 days and ordered the materials to be served on the Children's Lawyer for a report and recommendations.