Sirus Biniaz

The court issued a costs endorsement following a motion where the Moving Defendants sought to compel undertakings and defence medical examinations (DMEs).

The court found divided success: the Plaintiff succeeded in resisting the neurosurgical DME and the broad request for ongoing undertakings, while the Moving Defendants succeeded in compelling a physiatry DME.

The court determined costs on a partial indemnity basis, awarding the Plaintiff $7,933.23 and the Moving Defendants $1,180.63, reflecting the Plaintiff's greater overall success on the motion.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically requesting funding for a functional abilities evaluation (FAE).

The applicant also attempted to add a claim for psychotherapy treatment late in the proceedings, which the Tribunal denied due to procedural unfairness.

On the substantive issue, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the FAE was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's medical reports, which relied heavily on self-reporting, and preferred the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments, which found no functional impairment and noted the applicant's self-limiting behavior during testing.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines (MIG) and denied additional medical benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in fact by not accepting his chronic pain syndrome diagnosis as taking him outside the MIG.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the Tribunal made no significant errors of law or fact.

The Tribunal reasonably relied on medical reports diagnosing soft tissue injuries and the applicant's own admissions, and correctly noted that a chronic pain diagnosis does not automatically remove an insured from the MIG without proof it is separate and distinct from the minor injuries.

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

The respondent insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's expert reports diagnosing chronic pain and psychological impairments, finding them contradictory to the applicant's own admissions and his family doctor's records.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision precluding him from proceeding to arbitration for accident benefits due to his failure to submit a completed Application for Accident Benefits within 30 days of receiving it.

The appellant argued he was not required to provide a reasonable explanation, that the insurer had enough information to adjust the claim, and that his reliance on counsel explained the delay.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that section 34 of the Schedule requires a reasonable explanation for breaching the 30-day limit, and applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Cervo that mere reliance on counsel does not constitute a reasonable explanation.

The applicant failed to attend his scheduled arbitration hearing for statutory accident benefits.

His representative indicated he had lost contact with the applicant, who had likely returned to his home country, and requested an adjournment.

The insurer opposed the adjournment and moved to dismiss the application with costs.

The arbitrator found the applicant had been notified of the hearing and failed to meet his onus of proof by not attending.

The application was dismissed, and the insurer was awarded $1,432.36 in expenses.

The applicant was injured as a pedestrian in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer provided the application forms, but the applicant failed to submit a completed application within the required 30-day period, delaying submission for nearly two years.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, rejecting arguments of confusion and lack of retained counsel for the accident benefits claim.

Consequently, the applicant was precluded from proceeding to arbitration.

The applicants sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After their representative was removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, the applicants failed to attend scheduled pre-hearing discussions and the motion hearing.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the applications for arbitration.

The arbitrator granted the motion, dismissing the applications without costs due to the applicants' failure to participate.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to attend the arbitration hearing.

Her representative was permitted to withdraw due to a breakdown in the representative-client relationship.

As the applicant did not attend to present evidence, her claims were dismissed and she was ordered to pay $500 toward the insurer's expenses.