Yousef Jabbour

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that MRI evidence of a disc herniation warranted the applicant's removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved two physiotherapy treatment plans as reasonable and necessary, supported by contemporaneous medical recommendations.

However, other treatment plans for physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, and an orthopaedic assessment were denied due to a lack of supporting evidence or availability through OHIP.

The claim for an award for unreasonable withholding of benefits was dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, sought accident benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, claiming removal was warranted due to a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence that her pre-existing mechanical back pain prevented recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, finding no psychological impairment or chronic pain resulting from the accident.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were denied, and claims for a special award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of treatment plans for a neurological assessment, psychotherapy services, transportation costs for an orthopaedic assessment, and physiotherapy services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the neurological assessment and physiotherapy services were not reasonable and necessary, relying on insurer examination reports and the lack of objective improvement from past treatments.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant failed to justify a higher hourly rate for a psychotherapist and did not provide evidence of incurred transportation expenses.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment as a dump truck driver due to chronic pain and an exacerbated shoulder injury, establishing entitlement to pre-104 week IRBs.

However, based on the applicant's pre-accident self-employment income, the quantum of IRBs owed was calculated at nil.

Claims for post-104 week IRBs were dismissed due to a lack of evidence and surveillance showing a return to work.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for physiotherapy and an orthopaedic assessment as reasonable and necessary, but denied claims for psychological services, medication, and post-fall chiropractic treatment.

Aviva General Insurance applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for repayment of income replacement benefits (IRBs) paid to the respondent following a motor vehicle accident.

Aviva alleged the respondent misrepresented his employment status by returning to work as a truck driver without notifying the insurer.

The adjudicator found that the respondent had indeed returned to work and misrepresented his status, disentitling him to the IRBs.

However, because Aviva's unequivocal notice of repayment only specified $8,800.00, the adjudicator limited the repayment order to that amount, rather than the $18,000.00 sought.

The respondent was also ordered to pay $250.00 in costs for unreasonable conduct during the proceeding.

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

The respondent insurer denied the claims, determining the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal seeking payment for various treatment plans and assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing back condition and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's soft tissue injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to demonstrate a functional impairment or that his pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were not payable as the MIG limits were exhausted.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant was entitled to an income replacement benefit for a 12-week period, conditional on providing required financial documentation, but barred his ongoing claim due to his failure to submit an updated disability certificate as requested by the respondent.

The defendant MPW Industrial Services Inc. brought a motion to dismiss or stay a personal injury action, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not a convenient forum.

The plaintiff, a truck driver, was injured in Ohio when cargo negligently loaded in Ontario dislodged.

The court found that Ontario had jurisdiction based on a real and substantial connection, as two other defendants were domiciled in Ontario and the alleged tortious acts (negligent loading) occurred in Ontario.

The court also determined that Ohio was not clearly a more appropriate forum, considering factors such as comparative convenience, applicable law, multiplicity of proceedings, enforcement, and fairness and efficiency.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident and subsequent knee surgery.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life for the claimed period, as contemporaneous medical evidence indicated excellent recovery.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant no longer required attendant care services during the disputed period and failed to prove the expenses were incurred.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the physical injuries were sprains and strains falling within the MIG, and rejected the applicant's psychological evidence in favour of the respondent's section 44 psychological assessment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The applicant sought medical benefits for two physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the first treatment plan was duplicative and the proposing clinic no longer existed.

For the second treatment plan, the Tribunal found a lack of medical evidence supporting the need for treatment and that the applicant failed to establish causation, noting a more serious prior accident.

The application was dismissed and no interest was payable.

The applicant sought payment for a $2,065.00 chiropractic treatment plan following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefit, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting that her ongoing pain was likely attributable to pre-existing juvenile rheumatoid arthritis rather than the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for physiotherapy, an orthopedic assessment, and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the funding limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries, including headaches, chronic pain, and psychological issues, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence that pre-existing conditions prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer argued that the applicant was statute-barred from disputing the denial of social worker fees, HST expenses, and catastrophic impairment assessments because the application was not commenced within two years of the refusal.

The Tribunal found that the denial of the social worker fees was clear and unequivocal, rendering that claim statute-barred.

However, the Tribunal held that the denials for the HST expenses and the catastrophic impairment assessments were ambiguous and indeterminate, meaning the limitation period had not been triggered.

The application was permitted to proceed on those issues.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's right hip injury was caused by a subsequent fall from a truck, not the accident.

Relying on the insurer's examination report, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant had already received adequate soft tissue rehabilitation and did not exhibit signs of chronic pain requiring further assessment.

The application was dismissed, and no benefits or interest were awarded.

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 were subject to the $3,500 cap.

The applicant argued his injuries were not predominantly minor, citing a pre-existing condition and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found no compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG, nor sufficient evidence of a psychological injury.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG and dismissed the application.

The defendant Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought a motion to transfer the action from the Central West Region (Brampton) to the Toronto Region.

The plaintiff, Magdalene Coppin, opposed the transfer.

The court, applying Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found that the incident occurred in Toronto, the plaintiff resided and received treatment in Toronto, and examinations for discovery took place in Toronto.

The only connection to Brampton was the location of the plaintiff's counsel.

The court determined that the TTC met its onus to demonstrate that the interests of justice required the transfer to Toronto, considering a holistic application of the factors under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b).

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought attendant care and medical benefits.

The adjudicator found the applicant was statute-barred from claiming attendant care benefits because the application was filed beyond the two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the adjudicator determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) based on medical evidence and self-reporting, and that she had exhausted the $3,500 limit for medical and rehabilitation benefits.

All claims for additional treatment, assessments, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a non-earner benefit, medical benefits, and the cost of an examination following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she did not provide evidence comparing her pre- and post-accident activities, and the respondent's medical assessments found no significant physical or psychological impairments.

The treatment plans and in-home assessment were also deemed not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant's injuries were minor and there was insufficient evidence that the treatment was effective or that pre-existing chronic pain was exacerbated by the accident.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming chronic pain and psychological impairments removed him from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting inconsistencies in the applicant's expert reports and preferring the thoroughness of the insurer's examinations.

As the injuries fell within the MIG, the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits or the disputed medical and examination expenses.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.