Slavko Ristich

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for an award and interest.

In the initial hearing, the applicant had withdrawn his substantive claim for an attendant care benefit.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact, as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant an award or interest when no substantive benefits were found to be payable.

The applicant's attempt to introduce new evidence in the form of attendant care invoices was also rejected, as it would not have affected the outcome given the withdrawal of the underlying benefit claim.

The applicant sought a special award and interest after withdrawing substantive claims for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that because the substantive claims for attendant care benefits were withdrawn and the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred, there was no basis to conclude the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payment.

The application for an award and interest was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he was not an 'insured person' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) and that the respondent insurer was not required to assign a claim number.

The appellant's policy with the respondent had lapsed prior to the motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that anyone involved in an accident in Ontario has SABS coverage and that the respondent was required to pay benefits pending a priority dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's interpretation that 'a particular motor vehicle liability policy' refers to a specific policy, not a generic one.

The court also rejected the appellant's procedural fairness arguments regarding page limits and adjudicator expertise.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment and was not entitled to attendant care benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by applying the 'but-for' test instead of the 'material contribution' test, misinterpreting the Schedule, failing to find an exacerbation of her pre-existing conditions, and not applying an adverse inference for the respondent's alleged spoliation of expert raw data.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to advance new arguments not raised at the initial hearing and re-litigate findings of fact and weight of evidence.

The Tribunal confirmed no errors of law or fact were made that would have changed the outcome.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found he was not an 'insured person' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and exceeded its jurisdiction by encroaching on the exclusive jurisdiction of arbitrators to resolve priority disputes under O. Reg. 283/95.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that determining entitlement to benefits, including the threshold definition of an 'insured person', falls squarely within the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 280(1) of the Insurance Act.

The adjudicator also rejected the applicant's new arguments that the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund is an 'insurer' for the purposes of section 3(1), concluding no error of law was made.

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

The respondent insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant's policy had lapsed prior to the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not an 'insured person' under section 3(1) of the Schedule because no active automobile insurance policy was in place at the time of the accident.

The Tribunal also held that the respondent was not required to accept the application pending a priority dispute under O. Reg. 283/95, as the applicant was not entitled to benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing severe depression and anxiety were the primary causes of her impairments, and that her condition did not significantly worsen post-accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for catastrophic impairment, attendant care benefits, and disputed treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest were also dismissed.

This application sought court approval for a proposed settlement of statutory accident benefits claims for a catastrophically impaired party under disability, along with approval of the applicant's counsel's contingency fee agreement.

The court approved the settlement amount but significantly reduced the solicitor's requested 33.3% contingency fee to 15% of the net recovery, finding the higher fee neither fair nor reasonable given the case's lack of complexity and risk.

The court emphasized the need for detailed justification for fees, especially for parties under disability.

The insurer brought a motion for the production of various documents in an accident benefits dispute.

The arbitrator ordered the applicant to produce police, Crown, probation, and incarceration files related to his pre- and post-accident involvement in the criminal justice system, subject to claims of privilege, as they were relevant to his claims for non-earner benefits, attendant care, and catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator denied the insurer's request for the applicant's complete elementary and middle school records and complete family doctor records, finding that the applicant had already produced the reasonably necessary documents.