Thomas Kurasiewicz

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

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the applicant failed to notify it of the accident within seven days and failed to submit an application for benefits within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not notify the respondent until nearly two years after the accident.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable explanation for the delay, as ignorance of the law alone is insufficient and the delay caused prejudice to the respondent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed entitlement to income replacement benefits, various treatment plans, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment to qualify for income replacement benefits.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Schedule due to marked impairments in Adaptation, Activities of Daily Living, and Concentration, Persistence and Pace.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's expert evidence, finding that the applicant's psychological testing was invalid due to negative response bias and that she did not suffer from cognitive impairments or struggle with daily tasks.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, had reached maximum medical recovery, and was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, assessments, interest, or a special award.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for approval of a minor's settlement arising from a medical incident.

The action was commenced in Toronto, but the plaintiffs sought leave to bring the motion in Picton to avoid delays and backlog in Toronto.

The court dismissed the request for leave, holding that 'jurisdiction shopping' is not an appropriate solution to judicial backlog and directed the plaintiffs to bring the motion in Toronto.