Odette Ansell

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and physiotherapy treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life under the Heath test, as there was insufficient evidence to compare her pre- and post-accident functional limitations.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's partial labral tear constituted a minor injury under the Schedule, keeping her within the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline limit.

Consequently, the claims for non-earner benefits and treatment plans exceeding the limit were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a 2021 motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for psychological services, a catastrophic impairment assessment, and physiotherapy.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the psychological issues stemmed from prior 2017 accidents and the physical injuries had resolved.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant entitled to the psychological services and the catastrophic impairment assessment under Criterion 8, as the evidence showed the subject accident exacerbated his pre-existing psychological conditions.

However, the Tribunal denied the physiotherapy treatment plan, preferring the respondent's physiatrist's opinion that the soft tissue injuries had resolved and further formal treatment was not warranted.

Claims for a special award were dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to psychological impairments and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from a psychological condition or a pre-existing medical condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial notices were compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, except for one which was late but still provided sufficient reasons.

The application was dismissed, and no interest or award was granted.

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

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant sustained a psychological impairment, removing him from the MIG.

However, the applicant failed to prove entitlement to a non-earner benefit, as he returned to most pre-accident activities.

Most treatment plans were denied as not reasonable and necessary, or because the respondent cured initially deficient notices before the plans were incurred.

One psychological assessment was deemed payable under s. 38(11) because it was incurred before the respondent provided proper medical reasons for denial.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a non-earner benefit (NEB) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to submit a Disability Certificate (OCF-3) within the required timeframe and provided no reasonable explanation for the delay, barring entitlement for the initial period.

For the subsequent period, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as the evidence showed he could still perform the majority of his pre-accident activities, and his impairments were largely attributable to prior accidents.

The application was dismissed.

During a personal injury jury trial involving a laceration and subsequent amputation, the court ruled on the permissible ranges of damages counsel could suggest to the jury.

The court also reversed an earlier ruling, deciding to ask the jury to specify the particulars of the defendant's negligence due to scant liability evidence.

Finally, the court granted the defendant's request for an adverse inference instruction regarding the plaintiff's failure to call treating health professionals, noting their evidence was material to causation and damages.

During a personal injury trial involving a plaintiff who was injured by an unidentified hazard in a hardware store, the defendant sought to have the issue of contributory negligence put to the jury.

The court dismissed the request, finding no evidentiary basis for contributory negligence because neither party could identify a foreseeable risk or hazard that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care to avoid.