Michael Bishop

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for catastrophic impairment under either Criterion 7 (55% whole person impairment) or Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders).

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's experts, noting significant validity concerns and sub-maximal effort during the applicant's assessments.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to enhanced attendant care benefits, having exhausted her non-catastrophic limits.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment, but initially failed to specify that the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) applied, creating a period of non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG as no medical evidence was provided to the contrary.

Although the treatment plan was improperly denied, the applicant did not incur any expenses during the non-compliance period.

Therefore, the treatment plan was not payable, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking further particulars regarding a statement made by the respondent's claims representative and seeking to exclude the claims representative from the motion on the basis that she was providing legal services without a license.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for particulars, finding it was a factual issue to be determined at the hearing.

The Tribunal found the request to exclude the representative was moot as counsel had been retained, but noted that unlicensed representatives risk exclusion under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Law Society Act.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while in the course of his employment.

He commenced a tort action and claimed statutory accident benefits.

The WSIAT determined that his tort action was barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The insurer denied accident benefits on the basis that the applicant was entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

The Tribunal initially held that the WSIAT decision had no effect on the accident benefits claim.

On reconsideration, the Executive Chair cancelled the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the application, finding that the exception in s. 61(2) of the Schedule only applies to actions an injured worker is legally entitled to commence.