Noah J. Shapiro

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental or behavioural disorder) following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal evaluated the four domains of function under the AMA Guides.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts, the Tribunal found the applicant sustained marked impairments in Activities of Daily Living, Concentration, Persistence and Pace, and Adaptation.

As the applicant demonstrated marked impairment in three domains, he met the test for catastrophic impairment.

The claim for a section 10 award was dismissed as no specific benefits were ordered payable.

The applicant sought $1,887.95 for physiotherapy and massage therapy expenses incurred while awaiting a catastrophic impairment determination.

The respondent denied the claim because the expenses were incurred before a treatment plan was submitted, contrary to s. 38(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, finding that s. 38(2) is mandatory and relieves the insurer from liability for expenses incurred prior to the submission of a treatment plan.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found she was not involved in an accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by finding her leg collapsing was an intervening cause and by misapplying the dominant feature test.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and had not established any error of law or fact under Rule 18.2.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after falling while exiting her parked vehicle.

She required assistance due to polio and fell when her right leg collapsed while shuffling away from the van with her husband.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that while parking is an ordinary use of a vehicle, the use or operation of the automobile did not directly cause the injuries.

The intervening cause was the applicant's leg collapsing, which was the dominant feature of the incident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a mental and behavioural disorder.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant's impairments were pre-existing and did not meet the threshold.

The Tribunal found that the accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's psychological impairment, applying the 'but for' test.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychological expert over the respondent's assessors, the Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a marked impairment in all four spheres of functioning.

The application for a catastrophic impairment determination was granted, but the claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to various statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits and sought repayment of income replacement benefits, alleging willful misrepresentation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, as he failed to establish a 55% Whole Person Impairment or a Class 4 marked psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's medical experts over the applicant's.

Consequently, the claims for medical, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits were dismissed.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's claim for repayment, finding insufficient evidence of fraud or willful misrepresentation by the applicant regarding his employment status.

The respondent insurer requested reconsideration of a motion order that dismissed its request to remove five treatment plans from the applicant's application.

The insurer argued the applicant had exhausted the $50,000 non-catastrophic limit and had not yet been determined to be catastrophically impaired.

The Vice Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no significant error of law.

On her own initiative, the Vice Chair reconsidered the Tribunal's previous denial of an adjournment, ordering that the upcoming hearing be adjourned and the applicant's two files be combined to allow the catastrophic impairment issue to be determined first.

The plaintiff sued the defendant telecommunications company after tripping over an unburied cable installed at her residence.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment against its third-party installation subcontractor, seeking full indemnity for damages and defence costs based on a contractual indemnity clause.

The court found that while the subcontractor had complied with its obligation to obtain insurance, the pleadings included allegations of negligent cable placement that fell within the scope of the indemnity provision.

The court ordered the third party to pay 50% of the defendant's past and future defence costs, but held that determining indemnity for damages was premature.

The defendant appealed a Master's order granting leave to amend the statement of claim to add proposed contractor defendants in a trip and fall action after the limitation period.

The court held that the applicable appellate standard was correctness for legal error, with deference on factual and mixed findings absent palpable and overriding error.

Applying the add-party framework under Rule 5.04(2), the court found the Master properly identified and applied the governing principles, including the discretionary nature of the remedy and the plaintiffs' due diligence evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondents.