Mary Shemon

This motion concerned the approval of a settlement for a minor applicant who sustained serious personal injuries from a dog bite.

The court reviewed the proposed settlement amount of $55,000 and the applicant's legal fees, which were reduced from a 30% to a 20% contingency fee.

The court found the settlement to be fair and reasonable and in the minor applicant's best interests, the legal fees to be reasonable, and confirmed that all requirements of Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure had been met, including the minor applicant's consent.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits (ACB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her daughter provided 24/7 care.

The respondent insurer denied the claim on the basis that the expenses were not 'incurred' under section 3(7)(e) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was legally obligated to pay for the services, she failed to prove she actually received the services as claimed, noting vague invoicing and contradictory surveillance evidence.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate that her daughter sustained an economic loss to provide the care, as the daughter had not been actively working for years prior to the accident.

The application for ACB and interest was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans, arguing that the applicant's right ankle fracture was caused by a subsequent fall and relying on section 44 assessments to deny other treatments.

The Tribunal found that the right ankle fracture was caused by the accident.

The Tribunal also found the treatment plans for an ADL assessment, physiotherapy, and a neurological assessment were reasonable and necessary, noting the respondent's assessors failed to review the complete medical file.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered payment for psychological services because the respondent failed to provide a compliant denial notice under section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and payment for a neurological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefit because he failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he continued to engage in many pre-accident activities.

The claim for the neurological assessment was dismissed as statute-barred because the application was filed outside the two-year limitation period, and the applicant provided no grounds for an extension.

The Tribunal awarded interest on previously approved treatment plans, provided the expenses were incurred and unpaid.