Todd A. Reybroek

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for various treatment and assessment plans following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic treatment, a chronic pain assessment, a neurological assessment, and a concussion assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer's examinations and the applicant's own family doctors' clinical notes, which did not corroborate the need for the proposed assessments or treatments.

The plaintiffs were involved in two motor vehicle accidents, one in Georgia and one in Ontario.

They commenced a single action in Ontario against all defendants.

The defendants involved in the Georgia accident, who resided in the United States, brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action against them for lack of jurisdiction.

The court found that none of the presumptive connecting factors from Van Breda applied to the Georgia defendants.

The court declined to recognize a new connecting factor based solely on the presence of an Ontario co-defendant for a separate accident.

The action against the Georgia defendants was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The respondent 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 applicant argued her injuries fell outside the MIG due to a pre-existing condition, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient compelling medical evidence to establish a pre-existing condition or chronic pain syndrome.

Applying the "but for" test for causation, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's psychological impairments were related to social, work, and family stressors rather than the accident.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied claims for non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and a neurological assessment.

The applicant filed an application for dispute resolution with the Licence Appeal Tribunal after the limitation period had expired.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act and granted an extension of time, finding that the applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was not significant, the respondent was not prejudiced, and the appeal had merit given the applicant's recent catastrophic impairment designation.

The applicants sought to withdraw their application for arbitration regarding death benefits following a motor vehicle accident, intending to pursue the claim in court instead.

The insurer opposed the withdrawal, arguing it was forum shopping and an abuse of process, and requested reimbursement of its $2,000 assessment fee.

The arbitrator permitted the withdrawal on the condition that the applicants pay the insurer the $2,000 assessment fee within 40 days, and ordered that the applicants may not reapply for arbitration on the same issues.