Mahroze A. Khan

The appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and notified his insurer the next day that his vehicle sustained heavy damage.

He did not apply for statutory accident benefits until 17 months later, when he learned of his entitlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed his claim for failing to provide notice of his intention to apply for benefits within seven days under s. 32(1) of the SABS.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the LAT's decision, holding that the SABS is consumer protection legislation and that notifying the insurer of the accident itself satisfies the seven-day notice requirement, triggering the insurer's obligation to inquire about injuries and provide benefit information.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her claim for catastrophic impairment and income replacement benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal had found that the accident was not a necessary cause of her psychological impairment and that a subsequent 2018 volleyball injury was an intervening event.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable errors of law in the Tribunal's assessment of causation, pre-existing injuries, or the intervening event.

The appellant, an environmental clean-up worker, suffered impairments from toxic exposure while cleaning up a chemical spill caused by a fatal collision between two trucks.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, which were denied on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the SABS.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial, finding that while the use of the vac-truck met the purpose test, it did not meet the causation test as the toxic substances, not the vehicle, directly caused the injuries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT made no errors of law in its articulation or application of the purpose and modified causation tests.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that barred her from proceeding with her application for non-earner benefits due to her failure to attend an independent examination.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal violated procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact regarding the sufficiency of the insurer's notice and her reasons for non-attendance.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness and no errors of law or fact in the original decision.

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

The respondent requested a preliminary issue hearing to determine whether the applicant was precluded from proceeding with her application because she failed to attend a section 44 insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to attend the examination without a reasonable explanation and that the respondent's notices met the requirements of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a psychological assessment, which the insurer denied on the basis that the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) applied.

At arbitration, the Arbitrator found the MIG unconstitutional under s. 15 of the Charter without making any factual findings about the applicant's condition or whether the MIG actually precluded his benefits.

The Director's Delegate overturned this decision, holding that constitutional issues cannot be decided in a factual vacuum.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's judicial review, affirming that the Arbitrator erred by deciding the Charter issue without a proper factual foundation.