Mitchell John Barber

The applicant was struck by a motor vehicle while crossing a crosswalk and sought statutory accident benefits 15 months later.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant failed to notify them within the 7-day limit under s. 32(1) of the Schedule and failed to submit an OCF-1 within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay under s. 34, noting a lack of documentary evidence to support claims that her counsel attempted to contact the respondent earlier.

The Tribunal held that the respondent was prejudiced by the delay, as the applicant had moved out of the country, preventing medical assessments.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including psychological, chiropractic, massage, physiotherapy, and chronic pain assessments, as well as a catastrophic impairment determination assessment, following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

Specifically, the Tribunal noted a lack of objective medical evidence linking the applicant's psychological and physical complaints to the subject accident rather than subsequent accidents, and highlighted significant gaps in the medical evidence.

The appellant insurer appealed a preliminary arbitral ruling in a statutory accident benefits priority dispute under s. 268 of the Insurance Act and O. Reg. 283/95.

The central issue was whether the 90-day notice requirement in s. 3 was automatically suspended by O. Reg. 73/20 during the COVID-19 emergency period.

The court held, on a purposive interpretation of the emergency regulation, that the notice requirement functioned as a limitation period for that temporary regime and was therefore automatically stayed.

The arbitral dismissal of the priority claim was set aside on that basis, while the court noted that if this interpretation were wrong, deference would support the arbitrator's discretionary findings under s. 2.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, sought payment for outstanding balances on six treatment plans for psychological services and $400 for housekeeping benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to justify billing a psychotherapist's services at the higher hourly rate of a psychologist.

The claim for housekeeping benefits was denied because the applicant provided no evidence that the expenses were actually incurred or reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought a Non-Earner Benefit (NEB), interest, and an award under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in his self-reports and a lack of evidence regarding his pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports over the applicant's psychological assessments, which failed to review medical records or delineate the impact of multiple accidents.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought payment for a physiotherapy treatment plan in the amount of $1,249.24 following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plan based on an insurer's examination report.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary, placing significant weight on the clinical notes and records of the treating practitioners which showed the applicant was benefiting from the treatments.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the treatment plan with interest, but declined to order an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to attend the videoconference hearing or provide submissions.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application as abandoned, which the Tribunal denied, opting instead to proceed with the hearing in the applicant's absence under s. 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant presented no evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for benefits, interest, and an award.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request for costs, finding that the applicant's mere failure to participate did not constitute unreasonable conduct warranting a costs award against a self-represented party.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to four physical therapy treatment plans and one supervised exercise program.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the physical therapy treatment plans reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's ongoing complaints and treating physician's recommendations, giving little weight to the insurer's examination reports.

However, the Tribunal denied the exercise program as the applicant provided insufficient evidence to establish its reasonableness and necessity.

The applicant was awarded the physical therapy plans with interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6 and 7 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold, preferring the respondent's medical experts who assessed a 25% combined impairment over the applicant's experts whose ratings were unsupported by the AMA Guides.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims for income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The respondent's claim for repayment of income replacement benefits was also dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence pursuant to section 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Because the applicant presented no evidence or submissions, he failed to meet his burden of proof, and the application was dismissed.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request for costs, finding that the applicant's mere failure to attend did not constitute unreasonable or vexatious conduct that interfered with the Tribunal's process.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain caused by the accident, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for an orthopaedic assessment and a physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment plan, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments, but the applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was denied as the insurer's conduct was not excessively imprudent or stubborn.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

However, the applicant was awarded a physiotherapy treatment plan because the respondent insurer failed to provide a proper denial notice under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for a psychological assessment and a special award.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $16,931.56 in income replacement benefits, finding that the applicant wilfully misrepresented his employment status by returning to work as a realtor and operating a short-term rental business without disclosing the income to the insurer.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the denial of three treatment plans for physical therapy and psychological services, as well as claiming a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664.

The Tribunal found that the June 2018 physical therapy plan was reasonable and necessary to help the applicant transition to a home exercise program, but dismissed the claims for the November 2018 physical therapy plan and the psychological services plan due to insufficient evidence.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not found to be excessive or unreasonable.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been reached.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries warranted treatment beyond the MIG, noting the lack of specialist evidence other than a neurologist who diagnosed a predominantly minor injury.

The application for the treatment plan, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to add Wynn's Property Maintenance Ltd. as a defendant in a slip and fall action, and initially sought to add two other corporate entities but abandoned that request.

Wynn's opposed the motion, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The court found that the claim against Wynn's was discovered on February 4, 2019, when the plaintiff's counsel was informed of Wynn's identity.

Due to the suspension of limitation periods under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, the motion was brought within time, and leave to add Wynn's was granted.

The court also awarded $3,500 in costs to the two corporate entities that the plaintiff abandoned its motion against, finding the plaintiff failed to conduct proper due diligence before seeking to add them.

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

The respondent insurer denied certain benefits, asserting the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and requested the applicant attend insurer's examinations (IEs) under s. 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing that the Schedule does not permit an IE to determine the applicability of the MIG.

The respondent requested a preliminary issue hearing to determine if the application was barred under s. 55.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's interpretation of the Schedule was incorrect and that she was required to attend the IEs.

Because the applicant failed to attend the IEs without a reasonable explanation, she was barred from proceeding with her application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision barring him from proceeding with his application for statutory accident benefits due to his failure to attend insurer's examinations without a reasonable explanation.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Schedule, statutory notice requirements, and the necessity of the examinations.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant error of law or fact, and noted the applicant was attempting to reargue his case.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that barred her from proceeding with her application (except for an income replacement benefit claim) due to her failure to attend two section 44 independent medical examinations.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by finding the examinations were necessary and that she lacked a reasonable explanation for non-attendance.

The Vice Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no significant error of law or fact in the original decision and noting that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue the case.

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

The insurer denied two treatment plans on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and required the applicant to attend insurer's examinations under s. 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing that s. 44 does not permit an examination to determine the applicability of the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that the insurer is entitled to request an examination to determine if the MIG applies, and that the applicant's legal interpretation was incorrect.

Because the applicant failed to attend the examinations without a reasonable explanation, he was barred from proceeding with his application under s. 55 of the Schedule.

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

The respondent insurer requested two s. 44 insurer's examinations to address the applicability of the Minor Injury Guideline and the need for attendant care benefits.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing the examinations were not legally permitted.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding with her application under s. 55 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was entitled to request the examinations to respond to new medical documentation and that the applicant's erroneous legal position was not a reasonable explanation for non-attendance.

The applicant was barred from proceeding with her application, save for her income replacement benefit claim.