Michael William Chadwick

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, concluding she suffered a class 5 extreme impairment in social function and class 4 marked impairments in concentration, persistence, pace, and adaptation due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits at a reduced rate of $785.25 per month and approved several medical and rehabilitation treatment plans, including occupational therapy, physiotherapy, aquatherapy, and pet therapy.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay a 50% special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664, totaling $7,336.27, finding that the insurer unreasonably denied critical treatment plans early in the applicant's recovery.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying statutory accident benefits.

The motion was brought nearly five months after the deadline.

Applying the four-factor test for extending time, the court found that while the moving party intended to appeal and there was no prejudice to the respondent, the delay was poorly explained and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The proposed appeal improperly sought to challenge findings of fact, whereas appeals from the Tribunal are restricted to questions of law.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant insurer appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision finding that the respondent, a 19-year-old student athlete who was rendered tetraplegic in a motor vehicle accident, was principally dependent on his sister for care and therefore an insured person under her automobile insurance policy.

The Divisional Court found that the adjudicator identified the correct legal principles regarding dependency and reasonably applied them to the evidence, which showed the respondent relied on his sister for physical and emotional support despite living away for school.

The appeal and judicial review were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for chiropractic services, an attendant care assessment, and physiotherapy.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding on the chiropractic and attendant care claims because she failed to dispute the clear and unequivocal denials within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule, and declined to extend the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

The physiotherapy claim was dismissed as not reasonable and necessary, with the Tribunal finding the respondent's denial complied with s. 38(8).

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence or required employment information to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The Tribunal also denied the enhanced hourly rates sought for a psychotherapist and social worker, as well as the costs for progress reports, but awarded $200 for the cost of completing one treatment plan.

The claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed as there was no evidence of unreasonable delay by the insurer.

The respondent insurance company requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the applicant was principally dependent for care on his sister at the time of the accident.

The respondent argued that the adjudicator erred in law and fact by failing to compare the applicant's abilities with the care provided by his sister, and by finding that a physical or mental vulnerability is not generally required for a finding of dependency.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the adjudicator had properly applied the legal test from Co-Operators v. TD, considered the applicant's physical, emotional, and social needs, and that the respondent was merely attempting to re-litigate its case.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and notified the insurer on the same day, resulting in a property damage claim.

Over four years later, the applicant sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was statute-barred under s. 32(1) of the Schedule for failing to report injuries or an intention to claim benefits within seven days.

Applying the Divisional Court's binding decision in Hussein v. Intact, the Tribunal found that reporting the accident itself satisfied the notice requirement under s. 32(1).

The insurer failed to fulfill its reciprocal obligation under s. 32(2) to inquire about injuries and provide application forms.

Consequently, the applicant was not statute-barred and was permitted to proceed to a substantive hearing.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant a non-earner benefit (NEB) with interest.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the applicant's non-compliance with a section 33 request for medical documents.

The Adjudicator agreed, finding that the Tribunal failed to apply its own finding that the insurer had cured a deficient section 33 request.

Because the applicant did not comply with the valid section 33 request, the insurer was not liable to pay the NEB during the period of non-compliance.

The reconsideration was granted in part, and the decision was varied to find the applicant not entitled to the NEB or interest.

The appellant was injured in an ATV rollover and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) found she was not catastrophically impaired, giving little weight to the impairment ratings of her chiropractor, who had offered psychological diagnoses beyond his scope of practice.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no error of law in the LAT's treatment of the chiropractor's evidence, affirming that while a chiropractor may compile impairment ratings under the AMA Guides, they cannot provide medical diagnoses outside their expertise.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

The applicant relied exclusively on procedural arguments, claiming the respondent failed to comply with notice provisions under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant remained in the Minor Injury Guideline and was not entitled to the disputed treatment plan, as he failed to lead substantive evidence and the respondent's notices regarding the treatment plan were compliant.

However, the Tribunal found the respondent's notice requiring an insurer's examination for the non-earner benefit was deficient under section 44(5) of the Schedule.

Consequently, the respondent was ordered to pay the non-earner benefit pursuant to section 36(6).

The claim for an award was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant sustained a mild neurocognitive disorder and a specific phobia as a result of the accident, her impairments in activities of daily living, social functioning, and concentration, persistence and pace were only moderate (Class 3).

Although the applicant demonstrated a marked impairment (Class 4) in adaptation, the Tribunal concluded this was caused by severe pre-existing psychological limitations rather than the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing that the injuries were caused by a subsequent 2018 accident and that the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant satisfied the 'but-for' test for causation, as the medical evidence demonstrated ongoing injuries from the 2017 accident.

The Tribunal also found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary based on the supporting medical reports and clinical notes, giving little weight to the respondent's independent medical examination.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the treatment plan and interest, but the claim for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed as the respondent's conduct was not found to be unreasonable.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal initiated a reconsideration of a decision after discovering the former adjudicator had accepted an offer of employment with the respondent insurer, Aviva, prior to hearing the matter.

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

The original decision was cancelled and a rehearing in writing was ordered before a different adjudicator.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by ordering a written hearing without affidavit evidence and by failing to consider his filed evidence.

The Vice-Chair found no breach regarding the hearing format, as the Tribunal has the authority to control its procedure.

However, the Vice-Chair found a material breach of procedural fairness because the original adjudicator explicitly stated they could not locate the applicant's medical report, which had been properly filed and tabbed.

The reconsideration request was granted, the original decision cancelled, and a new written hearing ordered before a different adjudicator.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The tribunal held a preliminary issue hearing to determine which version of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule applied to the applicant's transitional policy, and whether her claims were statute-barred.

The adjudicator found that the 2016 Schedule's definition of catastrophic impairment applied.

Applying section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, the adjudicator declined to extend the limitation period for the applicant's income replacement benefits claim due to incurable prejudice to the insurer, but extended the limitation period for her medical and rehabilitation benefits claims.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied ongoing attendant care and housekeeping benefits in September 2018.

The applicant applied to the Tribunal in March 2022, beyond the two-year limitation period (even accounting for the O. Reg. 73/20 suspension).

The Tribunal found the 2018 denial was clear and unequivocal, meaning the application was filed late.

However, applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 7 of the LAT Act to extend the limitation period, noting the appeal had merit due to the applicant's catastrophic impairment and the insurer suffered no prejudice as it had continued to conduct assessments during the delay.

The appellant moved for a stay of an ongoing Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceeding regarding his claim for statutory accident benefits, pending the determination of his application for judicial review.

The underlying judicial review challenged an interlocutory LAT decision denying the appellant's request to convert a written hearing into an oral hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the application for judicial review was premature as the LAT proceedings had not yet concluded, and the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify court intervention at this stage.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered whether the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life under section 12(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Applying the Heath framework, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a comprehensive comparison between his pre-accident and post-accident functional status.

Relying on the insurer's medical examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the test for a non-earner benefit.

The claims for the non-earner benefit and the special award were dismissed.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving a rental vehicle leased by the defendant lessee but driven by an unauthorized third party.

The sole issue at trial was whether the lessee had given express or implied consent to his friend to possess the vehicle, which would make the lessee vicariously liable under s. 192(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court rejected the lessee's evidence that he had flatly refused his friend's request to use the vehicle, finding his subsequent conduct inconsistent with a refusal.

The court concluded that the presumption of consent was not rebutted and held the lessee vicariously liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans and assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain, psychological impairment, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, placing little weight on her expert's report due to a lack of contemporaneous medical support.

As the respondent had already approved the $3,500 maximum under the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and the application was dismissed.