Melissa Gizzo

The applicant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.

At the hearing, the Tribunal admitted the respondent insurer's expert psychiatric reports but refused to issue a summons to compel the expert's attendance for cross-examination due to non-compliance with procedural rules.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's strict application of its rules and refusal to facilitate the cross-examination of a key expert witness on a critical issue breached the applicant's right to procedural fairness.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after falling in a parking lot while loading groceries into her vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was a slip and fall, not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The applicant filed an appeal with the Tribunal more than two years after receiving the denial letter by registered mail.

The Tribunal found the denial letter was valid and triggered the limitation period.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the LAT Act, finding the applicant failed to establish a bona fide intention to appeal or provide medical evidence supporting the merits of her claim.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

Both the applicant and the respondent requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The respondent argued the adjudicator erred in law by not including language about post-accident income deductions in the income replacement benefit order.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness and erred in law by admitting a medical report without the author being available for cross-examination, refusing to issue summonses, and failing to provide adequate reasons regarding catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding no errors of law, fact, or breaches of procedural fairness that would have changed the outcome.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on snow and ice next to his parked vehicle.

He did not notify the respondent insurer of the incident until eight months later, after learning he required shoulder surgery.

The respondent denied benefits and raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding due to the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to notify the insurer within seven days or as soon as practicable, and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that ignorance of the law and waiting for the injury to reach a certain severity threshold are not reasonable explanations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to psychological issues.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, preferring the respondent's psychiatric expert who concluded her limitations were primarily physical rather than psychological.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's claim for an income replacement benefit for the period up to 104 weeks post-accident, finding she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment on an assembly line.

Claims for attendant care, housekeeping, and physiotherapy were dismissed as the applicant's non-catastrophic funding limits were exhausted.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for an award, finding the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The applicant was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied certain benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were limited to soft tissue sprains and strains, and there was insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain to warrant removal from the MIG.

The applicant also failed to prove entitlement to attendant care benefits, as no evidence of incurred expenses or economic loss was provided.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and capped medical and rehabilitation benefits at $3,500.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the applicant's claims, preferring the respondent's independent medical examination reports over the applicant's orthopaedic expert.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained minor injuries, and having exhausted the $3,500 limit, was not entitled to further chiropractic benefits, interest, or an award.

The applicant, a truck driver, suffered severe burn injuries to his legs while sleeping in the cab of his parked transport truck with the heater running, ultimately requiring bilateral knee amputations.

The respondent insurer denied statutory accident benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that sleeping in a truck cab and using its built-in heater are ordinary and well-known uses of the vehicle.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's theories of intervening causes, such as a stroke or a kettle, and concluded the heater was the dominant feature of the injuries.

The Tribunal held the incident was an accident and ordered the matter to proceed to a substantive hearing.

The applicant sought a declaration that two contingency fee retainer agreements signed with the respondent law firm were non-compliant with the Solicitors Act and Regulation 195/04.

The court found numerous significant deficiencies in the retainers, including the failure to state that the client retains the right to make critical decisions and the failure to provide an example of how the fee is calculated.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court declared the retainer agreements void and directed an assessment of the respondent's account.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the applicant.