Matthew Dale

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming expenses for dog walking services and a laptop for an online college course.

The Tribunal found that dog walking services were replacement services for the dog's benefit rather than essential rehabilitation for the applicant, and thus not compensable under s. 16(3)(l).

The Tribunal also denied the claim for the laptop and course due to insufficient details in the treatment plan to assess reasonableness and necessity.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had been laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic prior to the accident and had only worked 22 weeks in the 52 weeks preceding the accident, falling short of the 26-week statutory requirement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not 'employed' at the time of the accident within the meaning of section 5(1) of the Schedule, as intent to return to work does not satisfy the requirement of receiving wages for services.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The application for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after an incident where he was struck in the face with a walking stick by a pedestrian while seated in his vehicle.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation test, finding that while the incident arose out of the ordinary use of a vehicle, the assault was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The application was dismissed.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order dated October 31, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant was struck by a pickup truck while riding his bicycle, sustaining severe injuries to his left heel and ankle.

He applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment, which the insurer denied.

At arbitration, the arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that his need for two crutches and a short leg brace resulted in a 55% Whole Person Impairment under the AMA Guides.

Furthermore, the arbitrator accepted that the applicant's chronic pain and depression resulted in a Class 4 marked impairment in at least one area of functioning.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under both paragraphs 2(1.2)(f) and (g) of the Schedule.