Mariana Slomyanski

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a catastrophic impairment assessment.

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

Finding that proper notice was given, the Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet their burden of proof.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a chronic pain assessment and a psychological assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the assessments were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of compelling contemporaneous medical evidence to support ongoing pain or psychological symptoms years after the accident.

The application was dismissed, and no award or interest was granted.

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

The Tribunal ordered a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to removal from the MIG and the disputed treatment plan, the Tribunal found he failed to meet his burden.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any written submissions.

Pursuant to section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal proceeded without the applicant's participation.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the SABS following a motor vehicle accident, along with a treatment plan for CAT assessments and an award.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from moderate impairments in activities of daily living and social functioning, but did not meet the threshold of three marked impairments or one extreme impairment required for a catastrophic designation.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's physical limitations, rather than her psychological symptoms, primarily restricted her activities of daily living.

The claims for the treatment plan, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while in the course of his employment.

He applied for statutory accident benefits but was denied by the respondent insurer, who argued he was barred under s. 61 of the Schedule because he was entitled to WSIB benefits and his election to opt out of WSIB was made primarily to claim accident benefits, not to pursue a tort claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a bona fide intention to commence a tort action at the time of his election, noting the significant delay in issuing a Statement of Claim and the lack of evidence regarding steps taken to pursue the tort claim.

Consequently, the applicant was found to be statute-barred from proceeding with his accident benefits application, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to file written submissions or evidence for the hearing.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as abandoned and sought $500 in costs.

The Tribunal proceeded with the written hearing, finding the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden to establish entitlement to the claimed benefits, including psychological services, a chronic pain assessment, and travel expenses.

The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request for costs, finding the applicant's failure to file submissions was not inherently unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith, and the respondent suffered no prejudice.

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

The insurer denied the benefits and scheduled insurer's examinations under section 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled examinations and did not provide submissions for the preliminary issue hearing.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's notices of examination were compliant with the Schedule and provided adequate reasons.

Consequently, pursuant to section 55 of the Schedule, the applicant was barred from proceeding with his application for benefits.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer's examinations over the applicant's assessments, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence supporting chronic pain or psychological impairment.

The application for disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that their injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence by the deadline and did not seek an extension.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet their onus to demonstrate removal from the Minor Injury Guideline or entitlement to the disputed medical benefits, interest, and award.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criteria 4 and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident, as well as entitlement to psychological services.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet Criterion 4 because there were no positive findings of a traumatic brain injury on recognized diagnostic imaging.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not meet Criterion 8, as the evidence demonstrated she had been working part-time as a personal support worker, which was inconsistent with a Class 5 extreme impairment in work functioning.

The claim for psychological services was dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were submitted more than 260 weeks after the accident, contrary to section 20(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant failed to file submissions or evidence demonstrating that the expenses were incurred prior to the deadline or that any exceptions applied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the claims were time-barred and dismissed the application.

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

The insurer denied medical benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline limit and denied a non-earner benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries extended beyond predominantly minor soft tissue injuries, rejecting her claims of chronic pain and psychological impairment due to insufficient objective medical evidence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding no evidence that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

All claims, including a request for an award for unreasonable delay, were dismissed.

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

The insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied funding for chronic pain, psychological, and neurological assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted treatment beyond the MIG, noting that her family physician's clinical notes contradicted the assessment reports relied upon by the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the proposed assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

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

The insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied funding for orthopaedic, chronic pain, and psychological assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries fell outside the MIG, placing greater weight on the family physician's clinical notes which showed no ongoing accident-related complaints.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the proposed assessments were not reasonable or necessary.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision dismissing his arbitration proceeding for attendant care benefits due to a multiplicity of proceedings.

The appellant had concurrently filed a lawsuit for other accident benefits and an arbitration for attendant care benefits.

The Director's Delegate upheld the Arbitrator's decision, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias from the Arbitrator having conducted the pre-hearing, and agreeing that the appellant did not have an absolute right to split his claims between forums without a reasonable explanation.

The appeal was dismissed.