Leah Dick

This motion concerned a personal injury action where the plaintiff entered into a "Pierrenger Agreement" with one defendant (Artistic Landscape Designs Limited), settling the claim against them.

The plaintiff sought to amend the statement of claim to remove the settling defendant and limit the claim against the non-settling defendant (Suzan Fergus) to her direct and several share of liability.

The non-settling defendant initially resisted, seeking clarity on the implications for cross-claims and apportionment of fault.

The court granted the motion to amend the claim and dismiss both cross-claims, clarifying that the trial judge must still apportion fault among all original parties.

The plaintiff's request for costs against the non-settling defendant was denied, as the defendant's initial resistance was deemed reasonable.

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

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

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

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for certain incurred treatment expenses because the respondent failed to provide compliant denial notices under sections 38(8) and 38(9) of the Schedule.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

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

The applicant claimed to suffer from chronic pain and psychological impairments requiring treatment beyond the $3,500 MIG limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries, relying on the insurer's examination reports which were consistent with the treating physician's records.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and a section 10 award were dismissed.

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 Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to justify removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The claims for a non-earner benefit and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for nine treatment plans (OCF-18s) that were partially denied by the respondent insurer.

The disputed amounts largely related to administrative expenses, such as form completion, brokerage fees, and documentation support.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the outstanding balances for several of the treatment plans, as the fees for form completion, brokerage, and documentation were reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal denied claims for transportation and activity expenses where insufficient evidence was provided.

The applicant's claim for an award under Regulation 664 for unreasonable delay or withholding of benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries, including pulsatile tinnitus, warranted treatment beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to substantiate the tinnitus or prove it was caused by the accident.

Relying on independent medical examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's physical injuries were uncomplicated soft tissue injuries that fell within the MIG.

The disputed chiropractic treatment plans were deemed neither reasonable nor necessary, and the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment and assessment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he sustained psychological impairments that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence uncompelling, preferring the respondent's insurer's examinations which concluded the applicant suffered no significant physical or psychological impairments as a result of the accident.

The Tribunal held the applicant sustained a predominantly minor injury and was subject to the $3,500 funding limit.

As the disputed plans exceeded this limit, the claims were dismissed.

The respondent insurer brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's claims for an income replacement benefit and two treatment plans, arguing they were barred by the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator found that the claim for the income replacement benefit was not barred because the limitation period was suspended by O. Reg. 73/20 (the COVID-19 Limitations Regulation) before the two-year mark.

However, the treatment plans were denied more than two years before the application was filed.

The adjudicator held that the Tribunal does not have the authority under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend limitation periods set out in a regulation such as the Schedule.

Consequently, the applicant was permitted to proceed with the income replacement benefit claim, but the claims for the two treatment plans were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The applicant claimed entitlement to a physical treatment balance, an orthopaedic assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, as well as a special award and interest.

The Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatment and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had already received two OHIP-funded orthopaedic assessments, which constituted reasonably available medical benefits under another plan or law.

Furthermore, the evidence did not support the necessity of a chronic pain assessment, as the applicant's pain was managed with medication and he had not sought specialized chronic pain treatment.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 limit of the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that he suffered from chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairments that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and that his pain complaints did not meet the criteria for chronic pain syndrome under the AMA Guides.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's psychological complaints were clinically associated sequelae of his minor physical injuries.

As the applicant failed to prove his injuries were not predominantly minor, and the MIG funding limit was already exhausted, the claims for a psychological assessment, chiropractic treatment, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for psychological and physiotherapy assessments and treatments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied portions of the claims based on independent medical examinations suggesting the costs were excessive or the treatments unnecessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's proposed treatment plans and assessments were reasonable and necessary, rejecting the insurer's independent examiners' conclusions as incomplete or unpersuasive.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the disputed amounts with interest, but denied the applicant's request for a special award.