Meghan Manning Hull

Both the applicant and the respondent requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision regarding entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The respondent argued the Tribunal erred in finding the applicant was not barred from proceeding despite missing an insurer's examination, and erred in awarding pre-104-week IRBs.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in denying post-104-week IRBs.

The Vice-Chair dismissed both requests, finding neither party met the high threshold of demonstrating an error of law or fact that would likely have changed the result, and that both parties were improperly attempting to re-litigate the original decision.

This decision concerns a threshold motion following a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff, Carissa Marcantonio, suffered a "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function" as defined by the Insurance Act.

After reviewing the evidence of the plaintiff, her family, friends, treating professionals, and expert witnesses, the court found that the plaintiff suffered a severe, permanent impairment of an important mental or psychological function as a result of the accident, entitling her to general damages as awarded by the jury.

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

The Tribunal first dismissed the insurer's preliminary motion to bar the application for non-attendance at an insurer's examination, finding the request was made years after the application was filed.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant entitled to income replacement benefits for the pre-104-week period due to psychological impairments, but not for the post-104-week period as she did not suffer a complete inability to work.

The Tribunal also approved several treatment plans for occupational therapy, chiropractic, physiotherapy, and massage services, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Claims for a social work treatment plan balance and a special award were dismissed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal initiated a reconsideration of a previous decision on its own initiative after discovering the former adjudicator had accepted an offer of employment with the respondent insurer, Aviva, prior to releasing the decision.

The Associate Chair found that the former adjudicator's failure to recuse herself or disclose the conflict of interest created a reasonable apprehension of bias, violating the rules of procedural fairness.

The original decision was cancelled, and a new oral hearing was ordered.

The applicant sought a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for an income replacement benefit (IRB), attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law regarding her concussion diagnosis, surveillance evidence, and the medical assessments of several experts.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that while there were minor factual inaccuracies in the original decision, they were not significant enough to have likely changed the result.

The Tribunal's original weighing of the medical evidence and surveillance footage was upheld.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB), attendant care benefits (ACB), and approval for numerous treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment as a cashier or a complete inability to work post-104 weeks, relying on video surveillance showing no physical distress and independent medical examinations.

The ACB claim was dismissed because the care was provided by family members who did not suffer an economic loss, and the benefit was not deemed incurred as it was not unreasonably withheld.

The disputed treatment plans were found not reasonable and necessary, as the medical evidence did not support the claimed injuries, including a concussion, and the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $5,000 payable by the moving party to the responding parties.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice in a motor vehicle accident claim due to severe trial delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted leave to bring the motion after the action was set down for trial, finding the pandemic constituted a substantial change in circumstances.

The court provisionally struck the jury notice to prevent prejudice to the 83-year-old plaintiff, ordering that the trial proceed by judge alone unless civil jury trials have resumed when the case is called.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for an occupational therapy functional assessment.

The respondent denied the treatment plan on the basis that it was not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence demonstrating a need for the assessment, noting a lack of treatment records since 2016.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant's request for costs was denied.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's finding that the appellant driver was engaged in the course of her employment at the time of a motor vehicle accident.

The driver was attending a mandatory training session in Mississauga, staying at an employer-paid hotel in Toronto, and driving an employer-owned vehicle.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's application of the Bazely v. Curry test and dismissed the appeal, awarding $5,000 in costs to the respondents.