Melinda Jane Baxter

The applicant sought a special award under Section 10 of Regulation 664, alleging the respondent insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payment for a psychological assessment.

The insurer had requested a Section 44 examination before approving the assessment, which the applicant refused to attend without an audio recording.

The Tribunal found the insurer's actions, including its requests for a Section 44 examination and its eventual approval of the assessment by a new adjuster, were reasonable.

The application for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and were subject to the $3,500 cap.

The applicant argued that he suffered more than minor injuries, including a foot/ankle injury, cognitive dysfunction, and psychological damage.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving that his injuries were more than predominantly minor, as there was insufficient objective medical evidence linking his alleged impairments to the accident.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for two physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and were subject to the $3,500 cap.

The applicant argued she suffered chronic pain and psychological damage taking her outside the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her injuries were more than predominantly minor, preferring the objective clinical notes of her family physician over her chiropractor's records.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for three physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 cap had been reached.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that her injuries were more than predominantly minor or that she had a pre-existing medical condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG cap.

The application was dismissed as the applicant also failed to provide evidence that the disputed expenses had been incurred.

Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company and Wahaj Ahmed brought a motion to compel Romaiya Ahmed, Shi Shang, and Jian Yang to deliver full and final releases following a settlement agreement to dismiss claims against Wawanesa and Wahaj on a 'without costs' basis.

The court found that the delivery of a full and final release is an implied term of settlement unless otherwise agreed, and no such agreement was made.

The court granted the motion, ordering the delivery of the releases.

The appellants, who were injured in separate motor vehicle accidents, failed to attend insurer medical examinations (IMEs) because the insurers did not provide Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) certified interpreters.

The arbitrators in both cases held that the appellants were precluded from proceeding to mediation or arbitration due to their non-attendance.

The appellants appealed the preliminary orders and sought a stay.

The Director's Delegate accepted and combined the appeals because they raised the common issue of whether an insured person is entitled to a MAG-accredited interpreter at an IME.

However, the Delegate declined to stay the arbitrators' orders pending the appeals, finding that a stay is the exception and the grounds for appeal were not sufficiently compelling to warrant one.

The insurer brought a motion to compel the insured to attend a section 44 neuropsychological assessment to determine catastrophic impairment, and to stay the arbitration until she attended.

The insured had refused to attend, arguing she had not alleged a head injury or cognitive problems other than psychiatric issues.

The arbitrator found the assessment was reasonably necessary and fair, as the insured had raised catastrophic impairment as a new issue and her own psychiatrist's report noted cognitive complaints.

The motion was granted and the arbitration was stayed pending the assessment.