Mohamed Doli

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans and income replacement benefits (IRBs), arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's chronic pain condition, supported by her family physician's records and a pain consultant's report, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved two physiotherapy treatment plans and one psychological assessment as reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal denied a functional abilities assessment and a second psychological assessment due to a lack of submissions.

The Tribunal also denied post-104 IRBs, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was suited.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, a non-earner benefit, and several treatment and assessment plans.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove entitlement to attendant care benefits, as her self-reported resumption of daily activities contradicted the assessed needs.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, given her ability to continue nursing studies, drive, and perform household tasks.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the disputed treatment and assessment plans, preferring the respondent's medical evidence that the applicant's injuries were minor and did not require the proposed interventions.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits and several treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and a chronic pain assessment.

The adjudicator dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's section 44 assessments over the applicant's evidence, finding the applicant's occupational therapy report to be of limited evidentiary value due to inconsistencies with clinical notes and records.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden for the treatment plans by not providing copies of the disputed OCF-18s or specific submissions addressing the goals and costs of the proposed treatments.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident in December 2021.

The respondent denied the benefits based on section 44 assessments.

The adjudicator found significant inconsistencies in the applicant's self-reporting, including discrepancies regarding his medication use, treatments, and a subsequent accident in 2022.

The adjudicator placed less weight on the applicant's expert reports because they relied heavily on his unreliable self-reports and failed to review relevant medical records.

Preferring the respondent's section 44 assessments, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The application for IRBs and interest was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing back injury, chronic pain, and psychological impairments, and also claimed entitlement to Non-Earner Benefits (NEBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to support removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer's examinations which found no chronic pain or psychological condition requiring treatment beyond the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for NEBs, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant was an excluded driver under the policy pursuant to s. 31(1)(a)(iii) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer relied on an Excluded Driver Endorsement (OPCF 28A).

The Tribunal found the signed endorsement contained multiple ambiguities, including a missing policy number, unidentified vehicles, and an inconclusive signature date.

The Tribunal concluded the insurer failed to meet its evidentiary onus to establish the applicant was an excluded driver.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with the substantive hearing for benefits.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and attendant care benefits (ACBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility, having concealed her return to work and regular gym attendance from assessors.

Relying on objective medical imaging and the respondent's experts, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a dental assistant.

The claim for ACBs was dismissed because the expenses were not incurred as defined in the Schedule.

The respondent was awarded repayment of $2,984.59 for IRBs paid while the applicant was working.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRB).

The insurer terminated the benefits, arguing the applicant did not meet the test for entitlement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was employed as a school bus driver at the time of the accident and that the accident caused her right shoulder and back pain.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's physiatrist over the insurer's, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's physical limitations rendered her substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment, specifically driving a school bus for extended periods.

The applicant was awarded a weekly IRB of $292.46.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to strike portions of the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff's action was a product liability claim for damages following a vehicle crash.

The defendants argued that the amended portions, which introduced a defective ETCS-1 throttle control system module as the cause of the crash, constituted a new cause of action asserted after the two-year limitation period.

The court found that the module defect was indeed a new cause of action, not merely a particular of the original claim.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she could not have discovered the module defect through due diligence prior to the expiry of the limitation period, especially given her membership in a class proceeding where such issues were discussed.

Consequently, the motion was granted, and all portions of the Amended Statement of Claim referencing the module defect were struck.

The defendant brought a motion for leave under Rule 48.04 to compel the plaintiff to re-attend for a further examination for discovery and to permit examination on all events since the last discovery.

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident in 2005, with discovery in 2011 and the action set down for trial in 2015.

The court found the evidentiary basis for the motion, an affidavit by an articling student, problematic due to reliance on hearsay regarding the plaintiff's alleged employment change.

The defendant failed to demonstrate a "substantial or unexpected change in circumstances" or that refusing leave would be "manifestly unjust," as required by Rule 48.04(1).

The motion was dismissed, with the court also noting deficiencies in the motion record, including the absence of tax returns and discovery undertakings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour against the respondent school board, a school principal, and a teacher.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents, which the Tribunal granted, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against them personally as the school board assumed liability for their actions.

The Tribunal also granted the teachers' union leave to intervene, as the remedies sought could affect its members.

The applicant's request for document production was deferred as premature.

The Tribunal set out issues of delay and reasonable prospect of success to be addressed at the upcoming hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Master's order that refused to restore his motor vehicle accident action to the trial list.

The plaintiff missed the 30-day appeal deadline by a few days due to counsel's miscalculation of the time period.

Despite deficiencies in the plaintiff's supporting affidavits, the court granted the extension of time, finding the delay was short and inadvertent.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging employment discrimination requested an extension of time to file a Reply and an order for the production of documents from the respondents.

The respondents argued the request was premature as no Notice of Hearing had been issued and mediation was pending.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondents, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from its normal practice of requiring disclosure only after a hearing date is set.

The request for document production was denied, and the applicant was ordered to file her Reply within 14 days.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application for arbitration regarding statutory accident benefits.

The insurer opposed a complete dismissal, seeking to maintain its claims for repayment of benefits and expenses based on allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.

The arbitrator allowed the applicant to withdraw her issues but held that under section 282(3) of the Insurance Act, the arbitration must continue to determine the issues raised by the insurer.

The insurer was given 30 days to advise if it wished to proceed with its claims.