Nathan Mario Fabiano

The plaintiff's slip and fall action was dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court subsequently set aside the dismissal and imposed a mandatory timetable.

The plaintiff breached multiple steps of the timetable, including failing to deliver a sworn affidavit of documents, failing to answer undertakings, and failing to attend mandatory mediation.

The plaintiff moved to vary the set-aside order and extend the time to set the action down for trial.

The court applied the Reid and Jadid factors, finding the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, did not miss the deadlines through inadvertence, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was dismissed, and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Ms. Emmanuel, sought general damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

A jury found her 75% at fault but awarded general damages and Family Law Act damages.

The court then conducted a threshold analysis under the Insurance Act to determine if Ms. Emmanuel's injuries constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

The court found insufficient objective medical evidence to support permanence of physical injuries and no sufficient evidence for psychological injuries beyond 2017, especially considering her post-accident activities and lack of consistent treatment.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action, finding that Ms. Emmanuel did not meet the statutory threshold for non-pecuniary damages.

The applicant sought a $10,000 death benefit under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following the death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not "principally dependent" on her late husband for financial support.

The Tribunal applied the criteria from Miller v. Safeco, analyzing the applicant's financial situation in the six months prior to the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's own income was sufficient to cover more than 51% of her financial needs, meaning she was not principally dependent on her husband.

The application for the death benefit, along with claims for interest and a special award, was dismissed.

The applicant sought $2,818.14 for psychotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant had already received 51 sessions and the supporting psychological report lacked specifics on the necessity, frequency, and duration of further treatment.

Claims for an award under Regulation 664 and interest were consequently dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied as the applicant's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding the respondent was not liable to pay an income replacement benefit due to a material misrepresentation.

The applicant argued the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, denied procedural fairness, failed to apply strict statutory interpretation, and erred in declining to apply equitable principles of waiver and estoppel.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no ambiguity requiring strict statutory interpretation, and confirming that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to apply equitable remedies under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied income replacement benefits (IRB) and certain treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove a pre-existing condition, psychological injury, or chronic pain that would remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was not entitled to an IRB as he did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

However, the Tribunal found the disputed physiotherapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, and ordered them payable up to the $3,500 MIG limit, less amounts already paid.

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

The respondent denied certain psychological treatment and assessment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended that pre-existing back pain and accident-related psychological impairments and chronic pain removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claims, noting her family physician's records did not substantiate a pre-existing condition or a psychological diagnosis.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological expert over the applicant's, concluding the injuries were predominantly minor and the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic brain injury in a motorcycle accident, sought $7,017.40 for the unapproved portion of a home modification assessment treatment plan.

The insurer had partially approved the plan up to the $2,000 cap for assessments.

The Tribunal found that the home modification assessment involved an appraisal of the applicant's health status and functional limitations, and was therefore subject to the $2,000 cap under s. 25(5)(a) of the Schedule.

The application for the unapproved balance and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the claims between 2015 and 2017.

The applicant filed an application with the Tribunal in August 2019, well beyond the two-year limitation period.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the application was statute-barred under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denial notices were clear and unequivocal, meeting the requirements set out in Smith v. Co-Operators.

The Tribunal also declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the LAT Act, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, significant delay, and prejudice to the insurer.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.