Nicole Dowling

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) reconsideration decision that denied his claim for catastrophic impairment benefits following a 2006 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT erred in law by ignoring or mischaracterizing medical evidence and violating procedural fairness by relying on hearsay medical records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LAT properly weighed the evidence, gave cogent reasons for its findings, and correctly applied the law.

The court noted that the appellant's arguments amounted to questions of mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under section 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment from a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the adjudicator misapplied the 'but for' test for causation regarding her psychological and behavioural impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator correctly applied the legal test for causation and that her conclusions were factual findings supported by the evidence.

The court also upheld the adjudicator's finding that the appellant failed to prove a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning.