Louise Kanary

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

After withdrawing his claim for a non-earner benefit, the applicant requested that the Tribunal proceed with a written hearing solely to determine whether his injuries were subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal held that it does not have jurisdiction to determine whether the MIG applies as a stand-alone issue in the absence of an underlying dispute relating to entitlement to a specific benefit under the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent insurer brought a motion for the production of the applicant's accident benefits file from a subsequent motor vehicle accident, as well as the applicant's Employment Insurance file and bank statements.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the subsequent accident benefits file subject to redactions for relevance and privilege, as it was relevant to assessing the applicant's ongoing impairments and causation.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for the EI file and bank statements, finding them irrelevant, highly intrusive, and obtainable through other means.

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

The respondent denied funding for several physical and psychological treatment plans and a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found that the physical treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant provided no evidence of their goals or how they would address her injuries.

The Tribunal granted the balance of the psychological assessment cost, finding it did not exceed the maximum fee in the Professional Services Guideline.

The psychological treatment plan was partially approved for 8 sessions and evaluation testing.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $748.05 for benefits mistakenly paid directly to her instead of the clinic.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs), medical benefits for physiotherapy, and the cost of attendant care assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding no evidence of a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of employment.

The Tribunal granted the cost of the initial physiotherapy treatment plan incurred during the acute phase of recovery, but denied subsequent plans as the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery from minor soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal also awarded the cost of a single attendant care assessment, rejecting a retroactive assessment as meaningless and duplicative.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision, including attendant care, medical benefits for orthotics and chiropractic treatment, costs of examinations, and medication expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove attendant care expenses were incurred and that the proposed medical treatments and assessments were neither reasonable nor necessary given the applicant's pre-existing conditions and ability to perform self-care.

The respondent's request for costs due to the applicant's disregard of page limits was also denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits after the respondent terminated them.

The applicant, a personal support worker, returned to work on modified duties and reduced hours.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered soft tissue injuries to her cervical and lumbar spine, rendering her substantially unable to perform the physically demanding essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the income replacement benefits with interest, but declined to award costs as the applicant failed to provide evidence of unreasonable conduct by the respondent.

The appellant insurer appealed a summary judgment decision finding it failed to comply with s. 64(14) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule when terminating the respondent's benefits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly assessed the issue of compliance.

The Court also upheld the award of compound interest under s. 68 of the Schedule, finding no unusual circumstances to justify a different conclusion.