Oksana Turner

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying entitlement to medical benefits and interest.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by ruling on settled issues, limiting written submissions, and failing to award interest on overdue payments.

The applicant also alleged errors of law and fact regarding the causation of a shoulder injury and the necessity of various treatment plans.

The adjudicator dismissed the majority of the request, finding no procedural unfairness or errors of law, and noting that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue facts.

However, the adjudicator granted the request in part, ordering the respondent to pay interest on two treatment plans it had previously agreed to fund.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits.

The insurer initially placed the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied post-104 IRBs.

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited due to severe depression and psychological issues arising from the accident, entitling her to post-104 IRBs.

The Tribunal also awarded a 30% special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 on the medical treatment plans, finding the insurer unreasonably delayed approval and improperly relied on an assessor's legal conclusion regarding the MIG, but denied an award on the IRBs.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological services, a neuropsychological assessment, and an attendant care assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's left shoulder injury was a pre-existing condition that was not caused or exacerbated by the accident, failing the "but for" causation test.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's psychological assessment over the applicant's experts, finding insufficient objective evidence to support a psychological diagnosis.

The application was dismissed, and no benefits or interest were awarded.

Plaintiffs involved in a motor vehicle accident in New York and a second accident in Ontario commenced a single action in Ontario against multiple defendants, including the New York drivers, an Ontario driver from the second accident, and their Ontario insurer under an underinsured motorist provision.

The New York defendants moved to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction, relying on the presumptive connecting factors identified in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda.

The court held that where multiple defendants are sued and at least one is domiciled or resident in Ontario, a real and substantial connection exists allowing Ontario courts to assume jurisdiction over the entire dispute.

Splitting the litigation into separate proceedings across jurisdictions would undermine fairness and efficiency.

The motion to stay for lack of jurisdiction was dismissed.