Marko Radulovic

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an incident where she injured her knee after exiting her parked vehicle and stepping onto a curb.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the two-part test from Caughy and found that the vehicle was merely being used for support, which is not an ordinary and well-known activity for which automobiles are put.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that lifting her foot to step onto the curb was an intervening act and the dominant feature that caused her injuries, not the use or operation of the vehicle.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired under criterion 8 of the AMA Guides.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by considering pre- and post-accident levels of function and erred in law by imposing a higher burden of proof for marked impairments in three domains.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact and no breach of procedural fairness.

The Tribunal held that it properly applied the AMA Guides, appropriately weighed the medical evidence, and correctly placed less weight on an occupational therapy report that lacked an in-home assessment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for various treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer partially denied the plans, arguing the amounts exceeded the maximum rates established in the Professional Services Guideline.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the higher rates for document preparation and osteopathic services, as well as the recommended 1.5-hour psychological therapy sessions, ordering the respondent to pay the disputed balances plus interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, alleging the collision was staged and that the applicant made a material misrepresentation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence was logically inconsistent and contradicted by the respondent's accident reconstruction expert, who concluded the collision could not have occurred as the applicant described.

The Tribunal held that a staged collision does not meet the definition of an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule, as it offends the public policy against profiting from intentional acts codified in s. 118 of the Insurance Act.

The Tribunal concluded the collision was staged, the applicant was not in an accident, and the respondent was entitled to terminate benefits under s. 53 of the Schedule due to the applicant's wilful material misrepresentation.