Martin P. Forget

This motion concerned the defendants' application to set aside a noting of default in a simplified procedure action.

The court reviewed the defendants' extensive and unexplained delays in filing a defence, noting a pattern of missed deadlines and a two-month delay in retaining new counsel after terminating previous counsel.

Despite the general preference for resolving disputes on their merits, the court found the defendants' conduct demonstrated "shocking laxity" and deliberate delay.

The motion to set aside the noting of default was dismissed, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied various statutory accident benefits, including attendant care, home modifications, and occupational therapy.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness, made errors of fact, relied on false evidence from an occupational therapist, and that new medical evidence was available.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no procedural unfairness in separating the hearings, no errors in weighing the evidence, that the occupational therapist's prior disciplinary record did not render her evidence false, and that the new medical report would not have changed the outcome as it relied on self-reporting previously deemed unreliable.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, housekeeping and home maintenance, multiple treatment plans, medical cannabis, and botox injections.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's claims for attendant care and housekeeping were inconsistent with her pre- and post-accident level of function, noting she continued to work full-time and her family performed most household chores.

The requested treatment plans and medical expenses were deemed not reasonable and necessary, as they were unsupported by the contemporaneous medical evidence and the applicant failed to provide adequate information to the insurer.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed as no benefits were overdue.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he was not catastrophically impaired.

He argued the adjudicator made an error of law and violated procedural fairness by failing to properly apply the AMA Guides regarding concentration, persistence, and pace, as well as activities of daily living and social functioning.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the original decision complied with the methodology in the Guides and that no significant legal or evidentiary mistake was made.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident that resulted in a traumatic brain injury.

The central issue was whether the applicant's brain injury restricted his ability to work such that he met the criteria for catastrophic impairment under the GOS-E Guideline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was capable of working in a reduced capacity, as evidenced by his post-accident construction work and his role teaching martial arts to children, and therefore did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for attendant care benefits, finding the applicant to be highly functional both physically and cognitively, and denied the claim for interest.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8 of the Schedule.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law and fact by misapplying the Schedule, rejecting expert psychiatric opinions, misapplying the causation test, and ignoring evidence of deterioration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The adjudicator noted that assigning weight to evidence and preferring certain evidence over expert opinions falls within the adjudicator's role and does not constitute an error of law.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he was not catastrophically impaired.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by relying on sections 45(2)1 and 2 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to reject his expert medical reports, without raising the issue during the hearing.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding that the failure to provide notice and an opportunity to respond to this central issue violated the principles of natural justice.

The reconsideration was granted in part, the catastrophic impairment decision was cancelled, and a rehearing on that issue was ordered.

The plaintiff brought an occupier's liability action against the Crown for injuries sustained after falling at a provincial park.

The trial proceeded on the issue of liability.

The court dismissed the action, finding the claim statute-barred due to the plaintiff's failure to provide notice within 10 days as required by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove she tripped on a hidden retaining wall as alleged, concluding instead that she slipped.

The court also determined that the Crown, as occupier, had acted reasonably and was not liable for an obvious risk or for injuries resulting from the plaintiff's misuse of the premises.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to a mental and behavioural disorder, along with attendant care, home modifications, and other medical benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not a credible witness and failed to establish that her impairments were caused by the accident, noting significant pre-existing physical and psychological conditions.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the criteria for catastrophic impairment and dismissed all claims for disputed benefits, finding them either not reasonable and necessary, duplicative, or unrelated to the accident.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

She applied for a catastrophic impairment determination based on psychological and neurological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, as her mental and behavioural disorders resulted in only mild impairments in social functioning and concentration, persistence, and pace, and there was insufficient evidence of a mild traumatic brain injury to meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant to change her election from a non-earner benefit to an income replacement benefit, finding the initial election invalid because the insurer failed to provide a proper explanation of benefits.

The insurer was granted a repayment of the non-earner benefit due to deductible collateral benefits.

The Tribunal approved one occupational therapy treatment plan and awarded a 10% special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer unreasonably maintained its denial despite acknowledging the plan should have been reassessed.

Claims for a massage chair, attendant care benefits, and other assessments were dismissed.

The applicant, who has pre-existing cerebral palsy, sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including $6,000 per month for attendant care, $1,000,000 for home modifications, and multiple treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-report to be unreliable and preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, concluding that the accident caused only soft tissue injuries and an adjustment disorder, not the severe physical and cognitive decline claimed.

The Tribunal denied the claims for attendant care, home modifications, and most treatment plans, but approved psychological treatment and aquatherapy as reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest on the approved plans were granted, but the request for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant and respondent both requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The applicant argued the Tribunal provided inadequate reasons and erred in finding she was not catastrophically impaired, denying a psychological treatment plan, and denying an award.

The respondent argued the Tribunal erred in awarding post-104-week income replacement benefits.

The Vice-Chair dismissed both requests, finding no errors of law or fact and concluding that the original decision provided adequate reasons and properly weighed the evidence.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that his injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline limit, and that a specific physiotherapy treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.

The applicant argued that he was denied procedural fairness, that the Tribunal made errors of fact and law, and that new evidence regarding collateral health benefits should be considered.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant had adequate notice and opportunity to present his case, that any factual errors in the original decision were not material to the outcome, and that the new evidence would not have affected the result.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a registrar's order dismissing her action as abandoned due to delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by overlooking strong evidence that the respondents suffered no actual prejudice from the litigation delay or the delay in bringing the set-aside motion.

The respondents' conduct, including requesting a waiver of defence and later serving a statement of defence, belied their claims of prejudice.

The court emphasized that the absence of prejudice and the importance of deciding cases on their merits should take precedence.

The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal orders were set aside.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to psychological disorders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant suffered from accident-related post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, these resulted in only moderate impairments in the activities of daily living and social functioning.

Consequently, the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims for attendant care benefits, finding them not reasonable and necessary based on orthopedic evidence of normal range of motion.

Claims for an attendant care assessment and various treatment plans were dismissed because the applicant had exhausted the $65,000 non-catastrophic funding limit.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent argued the application was barred by res judicata and abuse of process due to a prior Tribunal decision denying post-104-week income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal rejected the preliminary objections, finding the applicant relied on new medical evidence.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant's impairments, including her psychological and chronic pain conditions, largely pre-dated the accident.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's expert evidence as flawed and concluded she did not suffer a marked impairment in three of four domains of function.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied certain benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limits, as he failed to prove that his pre-existing conditions or degenerative changes prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

However, the Tribunal approved a $917.88 physiotherapy treatment plan as reasonable and necessary, payable subject to available MIG funds.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's motions for an additional hearing day, recusal of the panel for bias, and the introduction of new evidence post-hearing.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing rheumatoid arthritis, psychological impairments, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's rheumatoid arthritis was in remission and did not prevent maximal recovery.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, concluding the applicant did not suffer from a psychological impairment or chronic pain syndrome that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The applicant's physical injuries were deemed predominantly minor.

The disputed treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary only up to the remaining MIG limits.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed for failing to provide particulars.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits (IRB), and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, as she did not demonstrate Marked or Class 4 impairments in three of four functional domains, relying partly on surveillance evidence showing her ability to socialize and complete tasks.

Consequently, her claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed.

However, the Tribunal granted her claim for a post-104-week IRB, finding her severe chronic pain and heavy medication use rendered her completely unable to engage in suitable employment.

Several treatment plans, including for medical marijuana and lidocaine injections, were approved as reasonable and necessary for pain relief, while others were denied.

The claim for an award for unreasonably withheld benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment designation and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion arguing the catastrophic impairment claim was barred by abuse of process, as a previous Tribunal decision had rejected the applicant's evidence as unreliable.

The respondent also argued the attendant care claim was barred because the applicant failed to attend an insurer's examination by insisting her treating occupational therapist be present.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's motion, barring the catastrophic impairment claim to prevent relitigation of factual findings, and staying the attendant care claim until the applicant attends the examination without preconditions.