Zeitoon Vaezzadeh

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, a pre-existing condition, and the respondent's accidental overpayment of the MIG limit.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish chronic pain under the AMA Guides or a documented pre-existing condition that would delay recovery.

The Tribunal also held that an administrative overpayment of $63.78 did not estop the respondent from relying on the MIG limits.

The disputed treatment plan was found not payable as the respondent provided adequate notice of denial under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated the benefits after the applicant returned to work and provided an Explanation of Benefits outlining the denial and the dispute resolution process.

The applicant filed an application with the Tribunal more than four years later.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denial was valid and clear, triggering the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

As the applicant did not file any submissions or evidence to request an extension under s. 7 of the LAT Act, the Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period and dismissed the application as statute-barred.

The defendant moved to compel the plaintiff to reattend an independent medical examination (IME) with a psychiatrist, Dr. Brian Kirsh, for psychometric testing.

The plaintiff opposed this motion and brought a cross-motion to compel Dr. Kirsh to produce a report based on his initial assessment, arguing the examination was complete.

The court found that the initial IME was indeed completed, despite the psychiatrist's assertion of incomplete testing.

Consequently, the defendant's motion was dismissed, and the plaintiff's cross-motion was granted, ordering Dr. Kirsh to produce his report.

The plaintiff agreed to attend a subsequent IME for psychometric testing after the report's disclosure.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle collision where the vehicle he was a passenger in struck a tree.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the collision was a staged accident and the applicant willfully misrepresented material facts.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found copious inconsistencies between the accounts of the applicant, the driver, and the other passenger regarding the events leading up to the incident and the collision itself.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the incident was an 'accident' under the Schedule.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant's inconsistent descriptions were made with the intent to mislead the insurer, constituting willful misrepresentation.

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

The respondent denied the claim because the disability certificate submitted by the applicant indicated she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

In a preliminary issue hearing, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to submit a 'completed' disability certificate as required by section 36(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, because the certificate did not certify that she met the criterion for the benefit.

The application for non-earner benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claim and raised a preliminary issue regarding the applicant's eligibility under s. 5(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not employed at the time of the accident, was not receiving employment insurance benefits, and had not worked for at least 26 weeks in the 52 weeks preceding the accident.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicant was ineligible to claim income replacement benefits.

The applicant brought a motion seeking production of unredacted adjuster log notes and an order declaring third-party property damage and bodily injury files inadmissible.

The respondent had denied benefits on the basis that no accident occurred and the applicant made material misrepresentations.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for unredacted notes but ordered the respondent to produce redacted log notes, including those of the third parties, with detailed explanations for each redaction.

The Tribunal found the notes were presumptively relevant to understanding the basis for the denial of benefits, and the respondent could not use privilege as a shield to prevent disclosing the reasons for denial.

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

The applicant failed to attend the peremptory arbitration hearing, despite a recent denial of her adjournment request.

The arbitrator proceeded in her absence and dismissed the arbitration, finding the applicant failed to discharge her onus of establishing entitlement to the claimed medical benefits and examination expenses.

The insurer was awarded arbitration expenses due to the applicant's conduct, which prolonged the proceeding and amounted to an abuse of process.

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

After a lengthy history of delays and adjournments, the applicant failed to attend the peremptory arbitration hearing, claiming illness at the last minute.

The arbitrator proceeded in his absence and dismissed the claims, finding the applicant failed to discharge his onus.

The insurer was awarded arbitration expenses due to the applicant's conduct, which prolonged the proceeding and constituted an abuse of process.

This is a costs decision following the successful summary judgment motions of the defendants and third parties in a slip and fall action.

The plaintiff argued that costs should be reduced due to his impecuniosity.

The court rejected this argument, noting that a plaintiff suing for a substantial sum must expect to pay costs if unsuccessful.

The court fixed the costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants, and the costs payable by the defendant to the third parties, on a partial indemnity basis.

In a slip-and-fall action arising from an icy residential driveway at the plaintiff's workplace, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim against the tenant as statute-barred under ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiff knew or ought to have known from the outset that the premises were rented and that the occupier-tenant should have been sued.

The court also dismissed the landlord's third party claim for contribution and indemnity against the actual occupiers and the real estate parties as barred by s. 18, holding that s. 18 creates an absolute two-year limitation period not subject to discoverability.

On the merits, the absentee landlord was held not to be an occupier under s. 1 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act and not liable under s. 8 because the lease placed snow and ice removal on the tenant and no actionable landlord default was established.

The main action and third party proceeding were both dismissed.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not involved in an 'accident'.

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the applicant failed to attend.

Her representatives brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, which was granted.

The insurer moved to dismiss the arbitration.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving she was in an accident and presented no evidence, the arbitration was dismissed.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer refused to pay benefits, arguing the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule.

The matter proceeded to arbitration.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The applicant's representative brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, which was granted.

The insurer moved to dismiss the arbitration.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving he was injured in an accident and presented no evidence, the arbitrator dismissed the arbitration.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the insurer denied on the basis that she was not involved in an 'accident'.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

Her representatives brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, and the insurer moved to dismiss the arbitration.

The arbitrator granted both motions, removing the representatives from the record and dismissing the arbitration due to the applicant's failure to present evidence.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not involved in an 'accident'.

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the applicant failed to attend.

The applicant's representative brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, which was granted.

The insurer moved to dismiss the arbitration.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving she was injured in an accident and presented no evidence, the arbitration was dismissed.