Vasiola Bibolli

The applicant sought entitlement to a $1,020 physiotherapy treatment plan, interest, and an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant also brought a preliminary motion to exclude the respondent's insurer examination reports due to late production of the assessors' CVs.

The Tribunal denied the preliminary motion, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the physiotherapy was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of compelling contemporaneous medical evidence and relying on the respondent's s. 44 orthopedic assessment which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The applicant argued she sustained a concussion, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support a concussion diagnosis and rejected the applicant's chronic pain assessment as internally inconsistent and contradicted by insurer examinations.

The Tribunal also found the applicant's psychological symptoms did not meet the threshold for a formal diagnosis.

Consequently, the Tribunal held the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, and she was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

The applicant sought a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 and interest on an approved treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the insurer unreasonably delayed benefits by insisting on in-person assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic and keeping her in the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found the insurer's conduct was reasonable and proportionate, noting the applicant worked in a medical lab during the pandemic and the insurer offered alternate arrangements.

The claim for a s. 10 award was dismissed.

However, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay interest on the approved psychological assessment from the date it became overdue.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded $3,047.27 in monthly attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness by awarding an amount not specifically argued by either party.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction under the Insurance Act and based its quantum determination on a detailed analysis of the evidence and both parties' submissions.

The applicant failed to meet the high onus required to justify a reconsideration.

An appeal concerning reasonable apprehension of bias and adjudicative independence in administrative tribunal decision-making.

The applicant sought a determination that her motor vehicle accident injuries met the statutory threshold for catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal adjudicator initially determined the threshold was not met.

An anonymous letter subsequently revealed that the executive chair of the tribunal cluster had reviewed and altered the adjudicator's draft decision before release.

The Divisional Court found a reasonable apprehension of lack of adjudicative independence due to the imposed consultation process lacking procedural safeguards.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding, emphasizing that consultation cannot be imposed by a superior level of authority without the adjudicator's consent and that robust procedural protections are required to safeguard independence.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury verdict awarding net general damages of $11,181.03, the court considered whether the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff, whose primary role was a homemaker, sustained permanent and serious impairments to important physical and psychological functions, including PTSD and depression.

The court ruled that the injuries met the threshold and dismissed the defendant's motion.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing that any catastrophic impairment was the result of a stroke the applicant suffered two years after the accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's psychological impairments resulting from the accident met the threshold for catastrophic impairment, and that the accident materially contributed to the stroke.

The arbitrator awarded attendant care benefits for incurred professional services but denied them for family-provided care due to a lack of evidence of economic loss.

A special award was granted against the insurer for unreasonably withholding payments.