Thomas Long

The applicant sought attendant care benefits, interest, and an award following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to additional attendant care benefits because the 260-week period for claiming such benefits had expired and the non-catastrophic monetary limit of $65,000 had been exhausted.

The applicant's preliminary motion to exclude the respondent's Insurer Examination report was also denied because the applicant had attended and participated in the examination without protest.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and several treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefit, as he continued to work full-time and did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal allowed some of the disputed treatment plans, including physiotherapy, an in-home assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Other treatment plans were denied, and the Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments that they were payable due to defective denial notices under s. 38(11).

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $500 in costs due to the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with production orders.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and interest following a 2021 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had previously been deemed catastrophically impaired following a 2010 accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of the subject accident.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's medical evidence, noting that the applicant retained sufficient mobility to perform most activities of daily living and that his need for assistance stemmed from his pre-existing injuries and advanced age.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought non-earner benefits and a medical benefit for physiotherapy from her insurer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life as required for non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal also found the physiotherapy treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence supporting the need for treatment.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $2,680.00 for a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had a significant history of chronic pain prior to the accident, and there was no evidence that the accident exacerbated this pre-existing condition.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed assessment was not reasonable or necessary as it was not related to the subject accident.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was payable.

The defendant, Walmart Canada Corp., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order by Justice Barnes that dismissed Walmart's motion for summary judgment.

Justice Barnes had found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the plaintiff's slip and fall claim and declined to use enhanced fact-finding powers.

The current court, presided over by Emery J., dismissed Walmart's motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of Justice Barnes' order.

The court also determined that the issues raised did not transcend the private interests of the parties to become a matter of public importance, thus failing to meet the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4).

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall claim.

The plaintiff alleged she slipped on liquid on the floor, while the defendant argued there was no liquid and it had a reasonable system of inspection.

The court granted the defendant leave to bring the motion after the action was set down for trial.

However, the court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding credibility, whether there was liquid on the floor, and whether the defendant's employees actually followed the system of inspection.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend her statement of claim to change the defendant's name from "Sheraton Hotels and Resorts" to "Four Points by Sheraton Toronto Airport" and to change the location of the alleged slip and fall.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it was not a case of misnomer but an attempt to add a new party after the limitation period had expired.

The court found no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim of misnomer or that the proposed defendant had timely notice of the incident, and noted significant prejudice to the proposed defendant.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After mediation failed, she applied for arbitration but failed to attend the hearing or communicate with her counsel, who was permitted to withdraw.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration due to the applicant's non-attendance and ordered her to pay the insurer's expenses of $1,528.67 for document production.