Mitchell John Barber

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought approval for psychological and physiatry assessments.

The insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary, noting that it had already approved nine other assessments related to a catastrophic impairment determination.

The Tribunal found that the requested assessments were duplicative and not reasonable and necessary given the comprehensive slate of assessments already approved.

The claims for the costs of examination and interest were dismissed.

The insurer's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant had previously commenced an arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) which was never formally completed or dismissed.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the applicant's rescission of a settlement agreement meant the FSCO file remained open.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.

The applicant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and sought payment for various treatment and assessment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding his accident details and symptoms lacked credibility, noting significant inconsistencies and a failure to disclose his return to full-time work.

The Tribunal approved an occupational therapy assessment, a psychological assessment, and assistive devices, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, claims for ongoing chiropractic care, chronic pain programs, a neurocognitive assessment, and a vocational assessment were dismissed due to lack of credible evidence supporting their necessity and the applicant's pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for a lump sum award, finding that the applicant's own refusal to attend insurer's examinations mitigated any delay by the insurer.

The plaintiff, Igal Shapiro, claimed insurance benefits from Economical Mutual Insurance Company (his father's insurer) or compensation from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund after being hit by an unidentified driver.

Economical and the Superintendent of Financial Services brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claim, arguing that the plaintiff failed to prove he was hit by an "unidentified automobile" as defined by the Insurance Act and the MVAC Act, and did not make reasonable efforts to identify the driver.

The court found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden of proving injury by an "unidentified motorist" and that the evidence presented was insufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial.

The motions for summary judgment were granted, dismissing the plaintiff's action against Economical and implicitly against the Superintendent.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application for arbitration of accident benefits after learning that the primary invoice in dispute had already been paid by the insurer.

The insurer sought its expenses for the arbitration proceeding.

The arbitrator permitted the withdrawal and awarded the insurer $500 in expenses, noting that both parties had prolonged the proceeding by preparing for a hearing without realizing the invoice had been paid, but finding the applicant's counsel somewhat more responsible for failing to credit the payment upon receiving notice.