Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-013264/AABS
In the matter of an application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8, in relation to statutory accident benefits.
Between:
Katherine Toma
Applicant
and
Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Timothy Porter
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Mobina Khan, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Annette Uetrecht-Bain, Counsel
Heard by Videoconference:
July 28-31, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Katherine Toma, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on August 13, 2012, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (the “Schedule”). The applicant was denied benefits by the respondent, Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal – Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
2The applicant was 6-years old at the time of the accident. Catastrophic determination reports were undertaken when the applicant was 10, 14 and 18.
ISSUES
3The issues in dispute are:
i. Has the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment as defined by the Schedule?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to a non-earner benefit (“NEB”) of $185.00 per week from August 7, 2025, to date and ongoing?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
4At the beginning of the hearing, the applicant changed the claimed date of eligibility for the NEB listed in the case conference report and order of February 3, 2025, from October 7, 2024, to August 7, 2025. The respondent did not object to this change.
RESULT
5The applicant has not met her onus to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she suffers a catastrophic impairment.
6The applicant has not met her onus, to establish entitlement to a non-earner benefit.
7As no benefits are owing, no interest is due.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has not met her onus under Criterion 7
8For the reasons that follow I find that the applicant has not met the legal test and is not determined to have suffered a catastrophic impairment, according to criterion 7.
9To meet the threshold of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7, the applicant must prove that she has a combination of physical and psychological impairment ratings from medical professionals that meet the 55% whole person impairment (“WPI”) threshold. The psychological impairment rating is determined in accordance with the methodology in the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 6th edition, 2008 (“AMA Guides, 6th edition”). The psychological WPI impairment rating is combined with the physical WPI rating from the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th edition, 1993 (“AMA Guides, 4th edition”) using the Combined Values Table. An impairment percentage derived by means of the AMA Guides, 4th Edition is intended to represent an informed estimate of the degree to which an individual’s capacity to carry out daily activities has been diminished due to injuries sustain in the accident that results in a WPI of 55% or more.
10The applicant has the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that they are catastrophically impaired, under criterion 7, as a result of the accident.
11The applicant submits that she is catastrophically impaired as a direct result of the August 13, 2012, accident, has continually suffered from pain in her neck, back and legs, has suffered strabismus, pika, and psychological trauma. The applicant relies on her testimony and the reports submitted by Dr. Naguib Milad, MD, Dr. David Kurzman & Dr. Caroline Roncadin neuropsychologists, and Dr. Tajedin Getahun, orthopaedic surgeon.
12The respondent submits that this was a relatively minor collision, and that her symptoms do not meet the threshold of impairment required for a determination of catastrophic impairment. The respondent relies on the applicant’s school report cards, university transcripts, the multi-disciplinary catastrophic assessments of Dr. Sekyi-Otu, orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Lawrence Tuff, psychologist, and Mr. Jeff Ford, occupational therapist (OT).
13The chart below provides a summary of both parties’ assessors’ ratings and the Tribunal’s finding for criterion 7.
| Impairment | Applicant’s Assessors’ Rating | Respondent’s Assessors’ Rating | Tribunal Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Musculoskeletal System | 10% | 1% | 1% |
| Nervous System | 29% | Not assessed | 0% |
| Mental or behavioural disorders | 40% | 7% | 7% |
| Final Score | 61% | 8% | 8% |
14I place little weight on the evidence of the applicant’s assessors because it is not possible to determine how the listed impairment ratings for nervous system and mental or behavioural disorders were reached. For example, Dr. Kurzman and Dr. Roncadin assign a rating of 29% for mental and behaviour disorders and Dr. Milad converts this to a rating of 40% in the summary report. Dr. Milad appears to take the ratings for the nervous system in Chapter 4 without accounting for the double counting from table 2 and then adds the Chapter 14, mental and behavioural ratings, at full value which has the effect of double counting some portion of the measured impairment. This issue had been raised by the respondent at the hearing. In addition, Dr. Milad takes the 29% rating for mental and behavioural disorders and assigns this rating to represent the nervous system; but no testing related to the nervous system was undertaken by Dr.’s Kurzman and Roncadin, or any assessor I have been pointed to, and their report does not opine on the nervous system. As a result, I find that Dr. Milad has double counted the portion of the Chapter 4 ratings associated with mental status impairments and the Chapter 14 ratings for mental and behavioural disorders when determining the WPI. The summary report of Dr. Milad is provided no weight because the translation of impairment ratings is incorrect. None of these assessors or authors were called as witnesses at the hearing.
15I assign the report of Dr. Getahun a diminished weight because he identifies that the applicant had restarted gymnastics and swimming at the age of 10 but does not account for this functionality in his report. In addition, his report is absent formal range of motion ratings, and his analysis of the impairments and limitations is too limited to provide confidence in his opinion.
16I assign the report of Dr. Kurzman and Dr. Roncadin a diminished weight because Dr. Kurzman opines that the applicant sustained a mild traumatic brain injury, however, I have not been pointed to any corroborative evidence of this and this opinion is an outlier in that regard. Of note, Dr. Kurzman and Dr. Roncadin did not review any substantive accident-related medical documentation from the year of the accident. Finally, Dr. Kurzman and Dr. Roncadin state that they believe the subject accident is the cause of the assessed functional limitations. However, they do not explain the mechanism of the injury and provide no analysis as to how any of the diagnosed injuries are as a result of the subject accident; when considering that this is the only diagnosis of a mild traumatic brain injury there is, in my view, far too little exploration of the accident as a cause.
Musculoskeletal system
17The applicant testified that she has pain in her body, her back always hurts and this pain caused her to not play sports in high school.
18Dr. Getahun assessed the applicant on March 31, 2016, and issued his report that same day. Dr. Getahun opines that the applicant has been impaired with a chronic myofascial strain of the cervical and lumbosacral spine. Dr. Getahun assigned a WPI score of 10% based on his diagnosis. As noted above, I assigned Dr. Getahun’s report a diminished weight, the strains and sprains identified are not quantified and there is no context upon which to judge any limitation. Of note, Dr. Getahun identifies that the applicant discontinued sports and then began participating in gymnastics and swimming again in high school but does not account for the re-engagement in sport within his analysis.
19Four years following Dr. Getahun’s analysis, Dr. Sekyi-Otu assessed the applicant on September 22, 2020, and concluded that there are no objective signs of ongoing impairment. Dr. Sekyi-Otu also opined that the applicant demonstrated an excellent range of motion and that the areas where pain is noted by the applicant do not show any evidence of guarding or spasm upon palpation. All of which suggests to me that there are no ongoing signs of injury. I put weight on Dr. Sekyi-Otu’s report because he clearly outlines the tests performed, results received and explains the implication of the results.
20The applicant also testified that she works at a grocery store at the deli counter without accommodation. The applicant related that she mostly works 4-hour shifts but has worked 8-hour shifts and on average works 16 hours per week. the applicant’s ability to do this work suggests a tolerance for standing, lifting and reaching. Taken together, the applicant does not appear to have a physical functional limitation that impedes work of this nature. The ability to perform this work is aligned with the opinion of Dr. Sekyi-Otu.
21I accept the ratings of the respondent’s assessors and find that the applicant’s musculoskeletal impairment is 1%.
Nervous system
22Dr. Kurzman and Dr. Roncadin assessed the applicant on April 9, 2016, and issued their report July 2, 2016, and Dr. Milad took their rating for mental and behavioural disorders and assigned the applicant a WPI score of 29% for the nervous system. The report specifically identifies the use of Chapter 4 tables 2 and 4 for the rating reached. Table 2 relates to the rating of emotional or behavioural disturbances. Table 4 codifies ratings for permanent disturbances in the applicant’s level of consciousness and awareness. It is completely unclear as to how this finding is reached and assigned as a rating for the nervous system. Dr. Milad is the source of this rating and as noted above I give his report no weight. As noted, Dr. Milad was not called as a witness at the hearing.
23The respondent’s assessors did not incorporate a rating for the nervous system.
24I have not been pointed to any other evidence of a nervous system functional limitation and the applicant did not testify as to any injury or limitation which was attributed to an injury to the nervous system. On a balance of probabilities, I find that the applicant has not established that she has a functional limitation attributable to an injury of the nervous system.
Mental or behavioural disorders
25Dr. Caroline Roncadin and Dr. David Kurzman assessed the applicant’s mental or behavioural impairments and assigned a rating of 29% impairment in mental and behavioural function for the rating of WPI. Dr. Milad increases this rating to 40% without a cogent explanation. Doctors Kurzman and Roncadin provided a diagnosis of major neurocognitive disorder due to traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder – with dissociative symptoms, enuresis, pica and adjustment disorder – with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct. The findings of Dr. Kurzman and Dr. Roncadin are inflated from 29% WPI to 40% WPI by Dr. Milad and there is no explanation for the higher WPI rating, which undermines my confidence in the Criterion 7 WPI ratings as a whole.
26Dr. Tuff, psychologist, assessed the applicant on November 3, 2020. Dr. Tuff concluded that the applicant meets the DSM-5 criteria for diagnosis of a somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain, persistent, mild but that she does not currently meet criteria for any other accident-related disorder and that there is no evidence of residual cognitive impairment. Dr. Tuff assigns a WPI rating of 7%.
27The applicant did not identify any functional limitations with regard to her activities of daily living and did not testify to any psychological symptoms. The applicant testified that she wakes up each morning and prepares to depart for school on her own and handles all personal care tasks, makes a breakfast on her own and spends the day at university.
28On a balance of probabilities, the applicant’s functional limitation for mental and behavioural ratings is 7%.
29Therefore, I find, on a balance of probabilities, the applicant’s WPI for musculoskeletal impairment is 1%, and mental and behavioural impairment is 7% which is an 8% WPI and not sufficient to meet the test of greater than 55% WPI required. The applicant has not met her onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that she is catastrophically impaired according to criterion 7.
The applicant has not met her onus under Criterion 8
30For the reasons that follow I find that the applicant has not met the legal test and is not determined to have suffered a catastrophic impairment, according to criterion 8, as a direct result of the August 13, 2012, accident.
31To determine whether an insured person is catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8, the Tribunal considers whether the accident caused a mental or behavioral disorder, the impact of the disorder to the person’s life, and the level of impairment as described in section 3.1(1)8 of the Schedule. The applicant bears the onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that she is catastrophically impaired. The test to determine whether the applicant has sustained a catastrophic impairment is a legal test and not a medical test (see Liu v. 1226071 Ontario Inc. (Canadian Zhorong Trading Ltd.), 2009 ONCA 571).
32Criterion 8 requires evidence of the insured person’s impairment levels due to a mental or behavioural disorder. Impairment levels are to be assessed in relation to four functional domains: (1) activities of daily living; (2) social functioning; (3) concentration, persistence, and pace and (4) adaptation (deterioration or decomposition in work or work-like settings). To meet the Schedule’s threshold for a catastrophic impairment designation under Criterion 8, an individual must have three marked (class 4) impairments out of the four spheres of functioning or one extreme (class 5) impairment as a result of the accident due to a mental and behavioural disorder. These impairments are assessed under the AMA Guides, 4th edition. Mental and behavioural impairments are rated according to how seriously they affect a person’s useful daily functioning. The spheres of functioning and the levels of impairment are outlined in the chart below:
| Area or Aspect of Functioning | Class 1: NO Impairment | Class 2: MILD Impairment | Class 3: MODERATE Impairment | Class 4: MARKED Impairment | Class 5: EXTREME Impairment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Activities of Daily Living (“ADLs”) | No impairment is noted | Impairment levels are compatible with most useful functioning | Impairment levels are compatible with some, but not all useful functioning | Impairment Levels Significantly impede useful functioning | Impairment levels preclude useful functioning |
| Social Functioning | |||||
| Concentration, Persistence and Pace (“CPP”) | |||||
| Adaptation (In a work-like setting) |
33The applicant submits that she is catastrophically impaired as a direct result of the August 13, 2012, accident, has continually suffered strabismus, pika, psychological trauma, chronic bedwetting. As with criterion 7 evidence, the applicant relies on her testimony and the reports submitted by Dr. Naguib Milad, MD, Dr. David Kurzman & Dr. Roncadin, neuropsychologists, and Ms. Brenda Labron, OT. The combined report was issued November 14, 2018.
34The respondent submits that this was a relatively minor collision, and that her symptoms do not meet the threshold of impairment required for a determination of catastrophic impairment. The respondent relies on the same evidence as presented for criterion 7; the applicant’s elementary and high school report cards, university transcripts, the multi-disciplinary catastrophic assessments of Dr. Sekyi-Otu, orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Lawrence Tuff, psychologist, and Mr. Jeff Ford, OT.
35The applicant underwent a catastrophic impairment determination multidisciplinary assessment by Dr. Naguib Milad, MD, Dr. Caroline Roncadin, psychologist, Dr. David Kurzman, Neuropsychologist, and Ms. Brenda Labron, OT. The combined report was issued November 14, 2018, the criterion 8 ratings assigned are as follows:
| Area or Aspect of Functioning | Class 1: NO Impairment | Class 2: MILD Impairment | Class 3: MODERATE Impairment | Class 4: MARKED Impairment | Class 5: EXTREME Impairment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Activities of Daily Living | Marked Class 4 | ||||
| Social Functioning | Moderate Class 3 | ||||
| Concentration, Persistence and Pace | Moderate Class 3 | ||||
| Adaption (In a work-like setting) | Moderate Class 3 |
36As noted earlier, diminished weight has been assigned to the report of Dr. Kurzman & Dr. Roncadin.
37The applicant also underwent catastrophic impairment determination multi-disciplinary assessments by Dr. Tuff and Mr. Jeff Ford, OT, who conducted an in-home visit and assessment on August 7, 2024. The conclusion by Dr. Tuff provided the following ratings of the applicant in the four spheres of function:
| Area or Aspect of Functioning | Class 1: NO Impairment | Class 2: MILD Impairment | Class 3: MODERATE Impairment | Class 4: MARKED Impairment | Class 5: EXTREME Impairment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Activities of Daily Living | No impairment | ||||
| Social Functioning | Mild Class 2 | ||||
| Concentration, Persistence and Pace | No Impairment | ||||
| Adaption (In a work-like setting) | Mild Class 2 |
38Dr. Tuff, psychologist, assessed the applicant on November 3, 2020. Dr. Tuff concluded that the applicant meets the DSM-5 criteria for diagnosis of a somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain, persistent, mild but that she does not currently meet criteria for any other accident-related disorder and that there is no evidence of residual cognitive impairment.
ADLs
39According to the Guides, Activities of Daily Living (“ADL”) include such activities as self-care, personal hygiene, communication, ambulation, travel, sexual function, sleep, social and recreational activities in the context of the individual’s overall situation, the quality of these activities is judged by their independence, appropriateness, effectiveness and sustainability. It is necessary to define the extent to which the individual is capable of initiating and participating in these activities independent of supervision or direction. What is assessed is not simply the number of activities that are restricted, but the overall degree of restriction or combination of restrictions.
40For the reasons that follow I find that, on a balance of probabilities, the applicant suffers no impairment of her ADL function.
41Dr. Kurzman and Dr. Roncadin opine that the applicant requires basic supervisory care to safely and completely perform activities of self-care and personal hygiene and assess that the applicant’s ability to participate fully in recreational activities is limited by amongst other limitations, psychological disorders. Dr. Kurzman and Dr. Roncadin posit that the applicant has a marked class 4 impairment of her ADL function.
42Dr. Tuff testified that the applicant had no psychological complaints and denied any cognitive issues during his clinical interview. Dr. Tuff opined that the applicant does have symptoms and complaints but that having a symptom does not mean there is a functional deficit.
43Jeff Ford, OT, assessed the applicant over 5 hours on two days in December of 2020. Mr. Ford reported that the applicant does not demonstrate a functional limitation that continuously prevents her from engaging in substantially all of the self-care tasks in which she ordinarily engaged before the accident. The applicant reported to Mr. Ford that she is independent with showering, dressing and grooming; she also reported that she is able to obtain a simple meal for herself as needed. The applicant had limited responsibilities prior to the subject accident and was not responsible for cooking, cleaning, laundry, grocery shopping or home maintenance; the applicant now reports that she makes her own bed.
44I put weight on the assessment of Dr. Tuff because I find that it is consistent with the applicant’s testimony of her functioning. The applicant testified that she does not require help or reminders for schoolwork or her schedule, and that a typical day consists of rising in the morning, eating a self-made breakfast, showering and grooming on her own. She testified that she spends the day attending a full-time university class load without accommodation, hanging out with friends and spending time on her phone. In my view, this is the behaviour of an independent teenager exhibiting appropriate and effective activities of daily living.
45I find that on a balance of probabilities the applicant does not suffer an impairment in her ADL function.
Social function
46The Guides specify an individual’s capacity to interact appropriately and communicate effectively with other individuals. It includes the ability to have a good relationship with others such as family members, friends, neighbours, grocery clerks, lenders, etc. Impaired social functioning may be demonstrated by a history of altercations, evictions, firings, fear of strangers, avoidance of interpersonal relationships, social isolation, or similar events or characteristics. Strengths in social functioning may be documented by an individual’s ability to initiate social contact with others, communicate clearly and interact and actively participate in group activities, consideration for others, awareness of others’ sensitivities and social maturity.
47Dr. Kurzman and Dr. Roncadin opine that the applicant has difficulty interacting appropriately with other individuals, as she experiences anxiety and social withdrawal, and is prone to have angry outbursts. Doctors Kurzman and Roncadin find that the applicant has a moderate class 3 impairment of her social functioning sphere. However, the applicant testified that she has friends at university, has made new friends and interacts with them regularly in-person and through social media.
48Dr. Tuff opines that the applicant has a mild class 2 impairment of her social function because she does not meet the criteria for diagnosis of a psychological disorder, there is no sign of residual cognitive impairment, and that the applicant’s level of independent functioning is mildly reduced at most and maintained by maladaptive parenting style.
49Jeff Ford OT, relates that the applicant reported socializing with friends, maintaining contact daily using social media and that she has made new friends at university. During the situational testing, the applicant shopped at a local store and interacted with the staff appropriately. I also note that during a cookie baking test administered by the Mr. Ford, he observed the applicant sharing the baked cookies with her siblings with pride.
50On a balance of probabilities, I find that the applicant knows how and does interact appropriately with family and others in the community. The applicant testified that she works at a local grocery store, at the deli counter, serving customers and preparing individual orders of deli meat. The applicant maintained this employment in July 2022 and was still employed at the time of the hearing. Taken together, this employment suggests to me that the applicant is acting appropriately with co-workers and customers.
51I find that, on a balance of probabilities, the applicant has a mild class 2 impairment of her social function.
CPP
52Concentration, persistence and pace is needed to perform many activities of daily living, including task completion. The Guides specify task completion refers to the ability to sustain focussed attention long enough to permit the timely completion of tasks commonly found in activities of daily living or a work setting. Strengths and weaknesses in mental concentration may be described in terms of frequency of errors, the time it takes to complete the task and the extent to which assistance is required to complete the task.
53Dr. Kurzman and Dr. Roncadin opine that the applicant’s psychological disorders impede her ability to concentrate, persist and pace herself appropriately while performing tasks independently; noting difficulties with attention and executive functions. Doctors Kurzman and Roncadin assess that the applicant has a moderate class 3 impairment of her CPP function, which I do not accept, as outlined earlier in my weighting of the evidence.
54Dr. Tuff opines that the applicant reported no issues or concerns with respect to aspects of thinking or memory and denied any problems with attention or memory and reported that her judgement and intelligence are intact. Dr. Tuff assesses that the applicant has no impairment of her CPP function.
55Jeff Ford, OT, notes in his report that the applicant was capable of performing sustained activity, as well as engaging and seeking clarification when provided with new and novel tasks. Mr. Ford engaged the applicant in a number of functional tests, a perceptual screening saw the applicant score in the 25th percentile for her age; during a pen and paper exercise search for errors the applicant completed the task in 8 minutes and had found 100% of the errors and engaged in a new and novel puzzle solving task in an efficient manner with no errors.
56The applicant testified that she attends the University of Waterloo and has maintained an honours grade level for which she receives a merit-based-scholarship. The applicant is enrolled in the health sciences program which was agreed to be a competitive program and engages in the program without any accommodations. The applicant reported that she selected the major area of study and selects all courses. I find that this level of achievement, sustained over a number of years is indicative of a strength in mental concentration.
57Taken together and on a balance of probabilities the respondents experts’ opinions are more consistent with the preponderance of evidence, that the applicant does not have an impairment of her CPP function.
Adaptation
58The Guides specify deterioration or decompensation in work or work-like settings refers to repeated failure to adapt to stressful circumstances. In the face of such circumstances the individual may withdraw from the situation or experience exacerbation signs and symptoms. He or she may decompensate and have difficulty maintaining activities of daily living, continuing social relationships and completing tasks. Stressors common to the environment include attendance, making decisions, scheduling, completing tasks and interacting with others.
59For the reasons that follow I find that, on a balance of probabilities, the applicant does not suffer an impairment of her CPP function.
60Dr. Kurzman and Dr. Roncadin opine that the applicant requires accommodations in school, has an impairment of her attention skills, learning capability and executive functions. Doctors Kurzman and Roncadin assess that the applicant suffers a class 3 moderate impairment of her adaptation function.
61Dr. Tuff opines that the applicant does not demonstrate any problems with adaptive skill and does not exhibit any signs of adjustment disorder. Dr. Tuff assesses that the applicant has a mild impairment of her adaptation function.
62Jeff Ford, OT, during in-home observation, relates that the applicant was capable of learning a new recipe and baking cookies; when the task was requested of her, she located a recipe online, checked the ingredients in the home, went to and shopped at a local store and then engaged in making the cookies, this was her first time baking.
63I am not persuaded by Dr. Kurzman and Dr. Roncadin because the applicant completed grade school, high-school and is attending university without any accommodations of any kind; which is directly counter to their assessment and is not supported by the preponderance of evidence.
64I find on a balance of probabilities, Dr. Tuff’s opinion is aligned with the preponderance of evidence, that the applicant has a mild class two impairment of her adaptation function.
65The applicant’s evidence does not provide ratings by assessors that would be sufficient to meet the test. The applicant has not met her onus to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she suffers a catastrophic impairment.
Non-Earner Benefit (NEB)
66The applicant has not met her onus, on a balance of probabilities, to establish entitlement to a NEB.
67Section 12(1) of the Schedule provides that an insurer shall pay an NEB to an insured person who sustains an impairment as a result of the accident if the insured person suffers a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of and within 104 weeks after the accident. Section 3(7)(a) defines a “complete inability to carry on a normal life” as “an impairment that continuously prevents the person from engaging in substantially all of the activities in which the person ordinarily engaged before the accident.” The Court of Appeal set out the guiding principles for NEB entitlement in Heath v. Economical Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 ONCA 391, which, generally, focuses on a comparison of the applicant’s pre- and post-accident activities.
68The applicant did not point me to substantive evidence related to the claim for non-earner benefits. The applicant did not testify regarding a complete inability to carry on a normal life.
69The respondent submits that the applicant is not entitled to non-earner benefits and relies on the testimony and report of Mr. Ford, and the testimony of the applicant.
70Jeff Ford, OT assessed the applicant for entitlement to a NEB and issued his report September 9, 2024. Mr. Ford concluded that the applicant does not suffer a complete inability to engage in substantially all of her normal activities. Mr. Ford continued, the applicant demonstrated the ability to sit, stand, walk, access all areas of the home without the need of any mobility aids; the applicant was capable of discussing her functionality, noting that she obtained her G2 license to drive, and had completed a full year of full-time studies at the University of Waterloo and did not demonstrate functional limitations in working memory, attending to singular tasks or with executive function.
71The applicant testified that she is currently employed by a local grocery store at the deli counter, the applicant has held this position since July 2022.
72I find that the applicant does not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.
73The applicant has not met her onus, on a balance of probabilities, to establish entitlement to a non-earner benefit.
Interest
74As no benefits are owing, no interest is due.
ORDER
75The applicant has not met her onus to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she suffers a catastrophic impairment.
76The applicant has not met her onus, to establish entitlement to a non-earner benefit.
77As no benefits are owing, no interest is due.
Released: November 5, 2025
Timothy Porter
Adjudicator