Nicolas Jeganathan

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments developed while caring for her husband and son, who were injured in a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent raised preliminary issues regarding the applicant's failure to notify it of her claim within seven days under s. 32(1) of the Schedule, and whether a claim for an occupational therapy treatment plan was barred by res judicata.

The Tribunal found the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay, as her psychological impairments developed gradually and she notified the respondent as soon as she became aware of them.

However, the Tribunal held that the claim for the occupational therapy treatment plan was barred by res judicata, as it was identical to a plan previously denied by the Tribunal in a 2025 decision.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found she was barred from proceeding with her accident benefits claim due to a seven-month delay in notifying the insurer.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to meaningfully apply the consumer protection mandate of the Schedule and overly focused on the length of delay and lack of medical documentation.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-litigate her case and had not established any error of law or fact that would warrant a reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b).

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being attacked by a dog that leaped from a parked vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule and that the applicant failed to provide timely notice.

The Tribunal found that the incident did not meet the purpose or causation tests for an accident, as the dog attack was an intervening act and the dominant feature of the injuries.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her seven-month delay in notifying the insurer.

The application was dismissed.