Mireille Dahab

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including a chronic pain assessment and a sleep assessment.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal made errors of fact and law and violated procedural fairness by preferring the respondent's expert witnesses.

The adjudicator dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case.

The adjudicator held that the Tribunal correctly applied the test for reasonableness and necessity, properly considered the availability of benefits under OHIP pursuant to section 47(2) of the Schedule, and made no significant legal or evidentiary errors that would have altered the outcome.

The applicant, an Uber driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed entitlement to post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The insurer terminated IRBs on the basis that the applicant could return to suitable employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, due to the synergistic impact of his physical injuries and psychological impairments, including chronic pain and depression.

The Tribunal ordered ongoing IRBs at $200 per week plus interest, but dismissed the applicant's claims for a special award and costs, finding the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable or in bad faith.

The applicant sought medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her physical and psychological injuries, including TMJ disorder and driving anxiety, warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the insurer's failure to comply with the section 38(8) timeline permanently barred it from relying on the MIG.

The insurer was ordered to pay the remaining $465.97 under the MIG limit for incurred physiotherapy, but the claims for TMJ and psychological assessments, as well as a claim for an award, were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological services following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plan based on an insurer's examination which concluded the applicant suffered no accident-related psychiatric impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant's expert reports related to a previous 2012 accident, there was a lack of psychological complaints to his family doctor, and the applicant successfully completed a realtor program despite alleged concentration issues.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in California and claimed statutory accident benefits from the respondent on the basis that he was a 'dependant' of his father, a named insured in Ontario.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant was not a dependant.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the Miller factors to assess financial dependency and found that the applicant was actively involved in the family business, generating wealth and demonstrating an ability to be self-supporting.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not principally dependent on his father for financial support and was therefore not an insured person under the Schedule.

The claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

The plaintiffs, Iris Technologies Inc. and ICE Wireless Inc., commenced an action against TELUS Communications Company for breach of contract and unlawful interference with economic relations.

TELUS brought a motion to temporarily stay the action, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction or was not the appropriate forum, as the core dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).

The court granted a temporary stay, finding that the factual and legal underpinnings of the civil action and the CRTC proceedings were the same, and the predicate misconduct concerned matters within the CRTC's specialized expertise.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision awarding the respondent pedestrian non-earner benefits, medical expenses, cost of examinations, and arbitration expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the insurer's grounds of appeal essentially disputed the arbitrator's findings of fact and weighing of evidence, rather than raising questions of law.

The Delegate affirmed that the arbitrator properly compared the respondent's pre- and post-accident life, correctly applied the burden of proof, and was entitled to rely on the testimony of the respondent and her daughter.

The appeal was dismissed with $10,000 in costs awarded to the respondent.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found the insured catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8 (mental or behavioural disorder) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred by failing to convert the psychological impairment ratings to a Whole Person Impairment (WPI) percentage, failing to consider the totality of the medical evidence, and improperly assessing the insured's credibility.

The Vice Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, holding that the Schedule does not require converting Criterion 8 impairments to a WPI percentage.

The Vice Chair further found that the Tribunal appropriately weighed the competing expert medical evidence, provided sound reasons for preferring the insured's expert over the insurer's expert, and adequately addressed the insurer's credibility concerns.

The applicant was injured as a pedestrian when struck by a transit bus, sustaining orthopaedic injuries and a mild traumatic brain injury.

She applied for non-earner benefits, medical benefits, and the cost of assessments, which the insurer denied.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's physical injuries, combined with resulting chronic pain, depression, and cognitive deficits, continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

The arbitrator awarded the non-earner benefits, the disputed medical benefits, and the costs of the neuropsychological assessments, but denied the applicant's request for a special award.

The applicant withdrew his application for statutory accident benefits before the scheduled hearing date.

The respondent brought a motion for costs, arguing the applicant wasted time with adjournments and should have withdrawn earlier.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith under Rule 19.1 and section 17.1(2) of the SPPA.

The applicant was struck by a bus in 2012, sustaining multiple fractures and subsequent psychological impairments.

She applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment under two criteria of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under s. 3(2)(e), as her combined physical and psychological impairments rated between 42% and 46%.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant was catastrophically impaired under s. 3(2)(f), finding she suffered a marked impairment in the functional areas of social functioning and adaptation due to her accident-related mental and behavioural disorders.

A claim for the cost of a psychiatric paper review was denied.

The appellant purchased a used car from the respondent that proved defective.

At trial in Small Claims Court, the appellant was awarded repair costs but denied damages for a 34-month car rental and a full refund.

The appellant cross-appealed the damages and costs awards.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no errors in concluding the lengthy rental costs were unforeseeable, rescission was not pleaded, and costs were appropriately capped at 15 percent under the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2008 motor vehicle accident, including costs for a psychiatric evaluation, an OCF-19, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to seek pre-approval for the psychiatric evaluation and that the charge for the OCF-19 was unreasonable.

Furthermore, the arbitrator found the applicant and his spouse lacked credibility, noting significant inconsistencies in their evidence and a failure to disclose relevant pre-existing medical conditions to assessors.

As the substantive claims were denied, claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant's legal counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, as they were unable to reach the applicant for instructions.

The insurer requested that the application for arbitration be dismissed with costs due to the applicant's failure to attend a pre-hearing discussion.

The arbitrator granted counsel's motion to be removed and dismissed the application for arbitration without a hearing, finding it frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith due to the applicant's failure to participate.

The insurer was awarded $500 in expenses.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and commenced an action against the driver and owner identified in the police accident report.

After the limitation period expired, the appellant learned the vehicle was uninsured and sought leave to amend the statement of claim to add his own insurer for uninsured motorist coverage.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding a lack of due diligence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant acted with reasonable diligence by relying on the insurance information in the police report until receiving actual notice to the contrary.

The applicant claimed caregiver and housekeeping benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The services were provided by a friend who purchased bus passes to travel to the applicant's home.

The insurer disputed that these out-of-pocket transportation expenses constituted an 'economic loss' under the Schedule.

The arbitrator held that the purchase of bus passes involved the expenditure of funds and constituted a monetary loss, thereby qualifying as an economic loss.

The issue of whether the loss was incurred 'as a result of' providing the services was deferred to a subsequent hearing.

The applicant applied for arbitration regarding statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant's legal representative brought a motion to withdraw due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, which was granted.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the arbitrator proceeded in the applicant's absence, dismissed the application for arbitration, and ordered the applicant to pay $1,500 in expenses to the insurer.