Theresa Park

The applicant sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the first claim because the applicant had previously withdrawn it and failed to notify the insurer of a renewed dispute.

The Tribunal also found the second claim was not properly submitted.

In the alternative, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to prove the attendant care expenses were 'incurred' under the Schedule, as the care was provided by his wife, a retired personal support worker who was not employed at the time of the accident and did not sustain an economic loss.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) from the respondent insurer.

The central issue was whether the applicant's income and losses from various rental and development properties should be classified as self-employment income or passive investment income for the purpose of calculating the IRB.

The Tribunal determined that three of the properties generated passive rental income, while the development of a fourth property constituted self-employment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was entitled to an IRB of $325.00 per week, less applicable deductions, plus interest on overdue payments.