4 total
Applicant entitled to chronic pain assessment; no award for delay as insurer appropriately adjusted file.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent initially denied treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
Prior to the hearing, the respondent removed the applicant from the MIG and approved the disputed psychological treatment plans based on new medical evidence.
The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a physiatry/chronic pain assessment, as her ongoing pain complaints and the respondent's own assessments demonstrated a need for further investigation.
The Tribunal declined to order an award for unreasonable delay, finding the respondent appropriately adjusted the file as medical evidence evolved.
Application for accident benefits dismissed due to lack of medical evidence and contradictory surveillance footage.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and a treatment plan for psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.
The applicant was represented by his spouse and failed to provide any medical documentation or expert testimony to support his claims.
The adjudicator relied on the respondent's section 44 assessment reports and surveillance evidence, which contradicted the applicant's claimed impairments and demonstrated his ability to perform daily activities independently.
The application was dismissed in its entirety.
The court dismissed the defendant's motion for third-party production of a prior accident benefits file due to lack of relevance and delay.
The defendant, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, moved for an order requiring the plaintiff’s accident benefits insurer to produce a file relating to a 2011 motor vehicle accident, arguing its relevance to a 2017 accident at issue in the present action.
The court found the moving party failed to establish either the relevance of the documents or that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without them, and dismissed the motion.
The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal without costs on consent of the parties.
The appellant, Layla Hassan, appealed a judgment concerning Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario, upon review of the materials and with the consent of both parties, dismissed the appeal without costs.