24-013524/AABS-A
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-013524/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:
Harun Mohamoud
Applicant
And
Intact Insurance Company
Respondent
AMENDED DECISION
ADJUDICATORS:
Melissa Shea
Rebecca Hines
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Harun Mohamoud, Applicant
Mallikage Jayatilake, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Karla Barone, Claims Specialist
Paige Schubert, Counsel
Court Reporter:
Chaunice Brooks, Victory Verbatim
Interpreter:
Edel Mohamed (Somali Language)
Heard by Videoconference:
September 15, 16, and 17, 2017 2025
OVERVIEW
1Harun Mohamoud, the applicant, was involved in an accident on May 1, 2018, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”). The applicant was denied benefits by the respondent, Intact Insurance Company, and applied to the License Appeal Tribunal – Automobile Accident Benefits Services (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
2The parties participated in a case conference; however, they were unable to resolve the issues in dispute. The matter proceeded to a three-day videoconference hearing. The applicant testified on his own behalf and we heard the testimony of his brother and Justin Moy, occupational therapist (“OT Moy”). On behalf of the respondent, we heard the testimony of insurer examination (“IE”) assessors: Dr. Sekyi-Otu, orthopaedic surgeon, Luciana Zazzara, occupational therapist (“OT Zazzara”), and Dr. Hasan, psychiatrist.
ISSUE IN DISPUTE
3The issue to be decided is:
i. Has the applicant sustained a catastrophic (“CAT”) impairment as defined by the Schedule?
RESULT
4After considering both parties’ submissions and all of the evidence we find that the applicant did not sustain a CAT impairment.
PROCEEDURAL ISSUE
Respondent’s motion to exclude evidence
5The respondent brought a motion seeking to exclude the s. 25 CAT reports of Dr. Jwely, psychiatrist, and Dr. Kwok, orthopedic surgeon, as evidence. The respondent submits that both of these assessors were listed as witnesses in the Tribunal’s case conference report and order dated March 14, 2025, and the applicant confirmed he was calling these doctors on his witness lists served on August 1, 2025, which was again confirmed on September 8, 2025, a week prior to the hearing. The respondent maintains that it was subsequently notified in the afternoon on September 8, 2025, that neither Dr. Jwely or Dr. Kwok (who was out of the country) would be attending the hearing. The respondent attempted to obtain a summons from the Tribunal, which was denied because the request was made less than 10 days prior to the hearing. The respondent asserts that it would be prejudiced by the admission of these two reports because it is unable to cross-examine these witnesses and test their evidence.
6The applicant acknowledged that these two witnesses were unavailable to testify and that he was unsuccessful in contacting them. However, he did not provide any information regarding when these attempts to contact these assessors were made. The applicant submits that the reports should not be excluded because they are relevant to the issue in dispute and he would be prejudiced if the Tribunal excluded these reports.
7We declined the respondent’s request to exclude the s. 25 CAT reports of Dr. Jwely and Dr. Kwok as evidence because we find that this evidence is relevant to the issue in dispute. Moreover, we note that it would be more prejudicial to the applicant to exclude these reports since it is his onus to prove that he sustained a CAT impairment. Further, they were served on the respondent on August 25, 2025. As a result, the contents of these reports are not a surprise to the respondent. We used our discretion under Rule 9.3 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules to admit these reports. However, as we will discuss further below we have given both of these reports no weight because the doctors did not make themselves available to testify.
BACKRGOUND
8On May 1, 2018, the applicant was driving as an Uber driver, when he was struck by another vehicle. The applicant testified that the air bags deployed, he lost consciousness. He hit his left knee and shoulder inside his vehicle. He was taken by ambulance to the hospital, where x-rays were taken which were normal. He was discharged from the hospital on the same day.
ANALYSIS
The applicant has not sustained a CAT impairment as defined by the Schedule.
9The applicant seeks a CAT determination under Criteria 7 and 8 of the Schedule. The onus is on the applicant to prove on a balance of probabilities that he sustained a CAT impairment. We will first address our findings regarding Criterion 7 and will then address Criterion 8.
Criterion 7
10To qualify under Criterion 7, the applicant must prove that he 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 Chapter 14, Section 14.6 of the Guides, 6th edition, 2008 and is combined with the 4th edition of the Guides using the Combined Values Table.
11To obtain the WPI rating under Chapter 14 of the 6th edition of the Guides, three psychiatric scales are administered to determine a person’s score which include: the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Global Assessment of Function (GAF) and the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale (PIRS). The median score is then taken from the three scales and represents a person’s total WPI% from a psychological perspective.
12The applicant relies on the multi-disciplinary s. 25 CAT reports of Meditecs Medical Assessment Company (“Meditecs”) dated February 28, 2024, in which he was assessed by Dr. Kwok, OT Moy, and Dr. Jwely, with the executive summary completed by Dr. Kwok. Meditecs concluded that the applicant had a combined physical and psychological WPI rating of 55% under Criterion 7 and therefore meets the CAT threshold. The applicant argues that we should accept the opinion of Dr. Kwok over Dr. Sekyi-Otu because a Somali interpreter was not present for the latter’s assessment. Further, his assessor’s ratings are more consistent with the applicant’s accident-related impairments.
13The respondent relies on the multidisciplinary IE CAT reports of Focus Assessments (“Focus”) dated November 3, 2024, in which he was assessed by Dr. Sekyi-Otu, OT Zazzara, and Dr. Hasan. Focus concluded that the applicant had a combined physical and psychological rating of 10 WPI%. The respondent argues that the reports and evidence of its assessors should be preferred over the applicant’s assessors because Dr. Kwok stepped outside of his scope of practice as an orthopaedic surgeon by providing ratings for occipital neuralgia and sleep disorder. Further, Dr. Jwely highly relied on the report of OT Moy, who relied on the applicant’s self-reports about his impairments and functional limitations which were inconsistent with the therapist’s observations during the assessment. It also submits that the Tribunal should give the reports of Dr. Kwok and Dr. Jwely no weight because they did not make themselves available for cross-examination despite the fact that these doctors were confirmed on the applicant’s witness list.
14The following chart provides a summary of both parties’ assessors’ ratings and the Tribunal’s findings regarding criterion 7 and our rationale will follow.
Impairment
Applicant’s CAT Summary
Respondent’s CAT Summary
Cervical Spine
5%
0
Thoracic Spine
5%
0
Lumbosacral Spine
5%
0
Right Upper Extremity (right shoulder)
8%
0
Left Upper Extremity (left shoulder)
14%
0
Lower Extremity (left knee)
4%
2%
Occipital Neuralgia
5%
0
Sleep Disorder
9%
0
Medication
3%
3%
Total WPI
41%
5%
Mental or Behavioural Impairment
20%
5%
Total WPI
53% (55%)
10%
Physical Impairment Ratings
15We accept all of the physical WPI ratings assigned by Dr. Sekyi-Otu over Dr. Kwok for the following reasons.
16First, Dr. Kwok did not testify or make himself available for cross-examination despite being confirmed on the applicant’s witness list. The respondent relied on the Divisional Court’s decision in Vivekanantham v. Certas Direct Insurance Company, 2024 ONSC 6198, in support of its position that it would be procedurally unfair for the Tribunal to assign any weight to Dr. Kwok’s report. In this decision the court determined that the Tribunal breached the rules of procedural fairness where it gave disproportionate weight to a report where the expert did not make themselves available for cross-examination despite being confirmed as a witness. We find the prejudice to the respondent clear as it was not able to cross-examine Dr. Kwok on his report, which is one reason we give the doctor’s report no weight and do not accept the doctor’s ratings.
17Second, we find Dr. Kwok’s report unhelpful in justifying the WPI% ratings assigned because the doctor did not explain in his report how he assigned the WPI% ratings according to the Guides. Dr. Kwok provided a bullet point list of WPI ratings for various physical impairments and did not provide any justification for the ratings. Further, as highlighted he did not testify to explain his methodology for applying the ratings. As a result, we do not know what Chapters in the Guides Dr. Kwok used to assign the WPI% ratings which is another reason we do not accept them. We also note that the WPI ratings assigned by Dr. Kwok for sleep disorder and occipital neuralgia were not supported by any impairment or medical records.
18Third, other than the reports of the two other CAT assessors, the applicant did not direct us to any clinical notes and records (“CNRs”) or medical reports to support any of the impairments or ratings. In fact, the Tribunal had to remind the applicant to have his own CAT reports marked as exhibits despite several reminders to direct us to the evidence throughout the hearing. In addition, the range of motion (“ROM”) examinations completed by Dr. Kwok and OT Moy were inconsistent. Dr. Kwok found restrictions in ROM of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine and the findings of OT Moy were normal. For these reasons, we find the CAT reports on their own insufficient evidence to support the WPI ratings assigned by Dr. Kwok.
19In contrast, Dr. Sekyi-Otu testified and explained his WPI ratings and why he did not assign ratings for certain impairments. For example, he applied a 0% DRE-I rating for the applicant’s cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine because his examination revealed no evidence of guarding, spasm or radiculopathy. Further, he explained that his physical examination and observations of the applicant were wholly inconsistent. In addition, the doctor tested the applicant’s active and passive ROM which was inconsistent with the doctor’s observations of the applicant’s presentation during the assessment. The doctor explained that to further investigate these inconsistences he reviewed the other medical records and reports in the file. Dr. Sekyi-Otu explained that the two prior IEs of Dr. Jaroszynski, orthopaedic surgeon (2018) and Dr. Lee, general practitioner (2022) determined that the applicant sustained soft tissue injuries and the doctor’s physical examinations were normal.
20The applicant argues that Dr. Sekyi-Otu’s report and testimony should be given no weight because a Somali interpreter was not present during the assessment and the applicant does not have a good command of the English language. He relies on the Tribunal’s decision in M.C. vs. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 CanLII 94035 (ON LAT) where the adjudicator assigned less weight to an expert’s report because the interpreter present for the assessment spoke a different dialect of the Portuguese language than the insured person. Dr. Sekyi-Otu clarified that there was a Somali interpreter in the waiting room prior to his assessment, however, it was the applicant who chose not to use them because he could communicate in English. Of note, the applicant communicated in English with both CAT occupational therapists during the assessments despite having a Somali interpreter present. Dr. Jwely’s report also noted that the applicant spoke English and Somali. We find this weakens the applicant’s argument that we should not give any weight to Dr. Sekyi-Otu’s report and opinion because of a lack of interpretation. In addition, during his in-chief examination the applicant was not asked about what happened at this assessment regarding the interpreter, so we do not have a competing narrative as to what transpired.
21Overall, we find Dr. Sekyi-Otu’s opinion regarding the WPI% ratings assigned remained unshaken during cross-examination. Dr. Sekyi-Otu testified that the applicant presented as self-limiting during his assessment, and that there were discrepancies between the applicant’s self-reports, the results of physical testing and the doctor’s observations. We also find the inconsistencies noted by Dr. Sekyi-Otu consistent with the report and testimony of OT Moy, the applicant’s own assessor which will be discussed further below.
22For the above-noted reasons, we find that the applicant has not met his onus in proving that he has a 41% WPI physical impairment under Criterion 7. Consequently, he does not meet CAT status because even if we accept the 20% assigned by Dr. Jwely (which we do not, as explained below), he does not meet the CAT threshold. However, for clarity we will address the findings of both parties’ psychiatric assessors.
Psychological Impairment Ratings
23We also accept the WPI rating of 5% assigned by Dr. Hasan over the 20% WPI assigned by Dr. Jwely for the following reasons.
24First, as highlighted above Dr. Jwely did not testify to explain his psychological diagnosis or his impairment ratings and did not make himself available for cross-examination. No reason was provided for his inability to attend the hearing despite being confirmed on the applicant’s witness list. As a result, we assign his report no weight because the respondent was not given an opportunity to test this evidence.
25Second, Dr. Jwely heavily relied on the report of OT Moy, which was based on the applicant’s self-reports. For reasons which will be discussed further below, we find this evidence to be unreliable. We also find that there were several limitations regarding OT Moy’s assessment. The following are some examples:
i. The duration of the assessment took place over two and half-hours in the boardroom of the applicant’s lawyer’s office and not his home environment. OT Moy agreed during cross-examination that this was not ideal to assess his function within his home and may have impacted the applicant’s performance.
ii. Other than the Beck Anxiety and Beck Depression tests administered which noted severe anxiety and depression, there was little evidence of any psychological symptoms throughout the assessment other than the applicant reporting fatigue.
iii. The Somali interpreter was present over the phone, however, OT Moy indicated that the applicant was fluent in English, and cognitive and paper tests were done without the interpreter.
iv. The cognitive tests showed severe cognitive impairment as the applicant scored an 8/30 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA). We find the applicant has not linked any cognitive impairment to the accident. For example, there is no evidence that the applicant has been diagnosed with a concussion or brain injury other than his self-reports that he lost consciousness in the accident. By contrast, the ambulance call report in the documents reviewed by assessors note “no LOC”, i.e. no loss of consciousness.
v. There were inconsistencies between the applicant’s self-reports about his functional limitations and the therapist’s testing and observations. For example, the applicant reported he could only sit for 10 minutes and avoids stairs. However, OT Moy observed the applicant to ascend and descend 15 stairs when he entered the law office and sit for longer than his reported tolerance. It was also noted that the applicant could drive 45 minutes which requires sitting. The grip strength testing showed severe functional limitations, yet the therapist observed that the applicant was able to hold various items including a 10-pound dumbbell.
vi. The physical testing of the applicant’s back, neck, shoulders, elbows, knees revealed normal ROM, despite the applicant’s reported limitations.
26During cross-examination, OT Moy acknowledged the various discrepancies regarding the applicant’s self-reports regarding function and his observations during the assessment. We find the above inconsistencies call into question the applicant’s self-reports about his psychological symptoms and limitations. For these reasons, we do not find OT Moy’s report persuasive.
27Third, other than the CAT reports, the applicant did not rely on any other CNRs or medical reports to support that he sustained a psychological impairment as a result of the accident. We note that the CNRs of Dr. Yacowar, the applicant’s family doctor (which the respondent directed us to), note that the applicant complained of psychological symptoms on a few occasions following the accident. However, neither party made any submissions as to the relevance of these records to the issue we have been asked to decide. Consequently, we find it would be inappropriate for us to make a finding regarding the relevance of this evidence in the absence of submissions. Similar to what we already discussed above, we find that relying on the CAT reports on their own insufficient to establish that the applicant sustained a CAT impairment.
28In contrast, Dr. Hasan testified to explain his ratings. The doctor administered psychometric tests which revealed that the applicant had mild symptoms of anxiety and depression. He explained that the tests he used had validity measures which indicated the test results were valid. The doctor’s mental status examination of the applicant was normal and he concluded that there was no diagnosable psychological impairment. Dr. Hasan also explained that there was little evidence of a psychological impairment in his file review and two prior psychological IEs done on this claim found no evidence of a psychological diagnosis. Further, we find OT Zazzara’s in-home and situational assessments documented little evidence of any psychological symptoms. We also find her assessment was more thorough because it was completed in the applicant’s home over a two-day period and she completed functional testing to assess the applicant’s function. In addition, we find the reports of OT Zazzara balanced because she documented any functional impairments she encountered on tests and discussed inconsistencies or validity issues. In light of the evidence before us, we accept Dr. Hasan’s opinion.
29In any event, we note that even if we accepted Dr.Jwely’s rating of 20% WPI (which we do not) and combine it with the total physical WPI found above (5%), the applicant does not meet the 55% WPI threshold to qualify for CAT status. We will now address our findings regarding Criterion 8.
Criterion 8
The applicant did not sustain a CAT impairment under Criterion 8
30In order to meet the threshold for a CAT impairment under Criterion 8, an individual must have sustained 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 Chapter 14 of the 4th edition of the Guides. Mental and behavioural impairments are rated according to how seriously they affect a person’ useful daily functioning. The Guides set out the four spheres of functioning and the levels of impairment as 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
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
Adaptation (Deterioration in a work-like setting)
31The applicant relies on the reports of OT Moy and Dr. Jwely who concluded that the applicant has three marked impairments in Social Functioning, Adaptation and Concentration, Persistence and Pace.
32The respondent relies on the reports of OT Zazzara, and Dr. Hasan who determined that the applicant had mild impairments in the three spheres.
33For the reasons already noted above, we find that there is little evidence before us to support that the applicant sustained any significant psychological impairments as a result of the accident. Further, as discussed above we have given Dr. Jwely’s report no weight. For this reason, we accept the mild impairment ratings of Dr. Hasan over the marked impairment ratings of Dr. Jwely. However, for completeness, we will address why we find the applicant does not have three marked impairments under Criterion 8.
Social Functioning
34We find that the applicant has a mild impairment in social functioning for the following reasons.
35According to the Guides, this area of social functioning refers to an individual’s capacity to interact appropriately and communicate effectively with other individuals such as family and friends, neighbours, clerks and others. It is not only the number of aspects in which social functioning is impaired that is significant, but also the overall degree of interference with a particular aspect or combination of aspects. The Guides specify that impaired social functioning may be demonstrated by a history of altercations, evictions, firings, fear of strangers, avoidance of interpersonal relationships or social isolation.
36The applicant testified that prior to the accident he was happy and enjoyed going out with friends to restaurants and for coffee. Further, he had a good relationship with his family. He was also able to help his children financially, who live in Somalia with his ex-wife.
37The applicant testified that post-accident he has increased anxiety and fear, rarely leaves his apartment and has not talked to his children for six months. In addition, because of his inability to work post-accident he is unable to financially assist his children and had to rely on his brother for financial support. This has caused financial stress which in turn has led to increased anxiety and depression. This has also impacted his relationship with his brother, whom he no longer speaks to. Further, due to fatigue and a lack of motivation he is not able to go on dates, talk to women and get re-married. In addition, he testified that he is unable to control his anger and frequently has angry outbursts.
38The applicant’s brother testified that prior to the accident, his brother was a very active, hardworking and ambitious person. He interacted with people and played soccer. Post-accident he is a changed man and is sad, depressed and socially withdrawn and can no longer financially provide for his family, so he has been providing financial support to the applicant’s children in Somalia. He also claims that he is aware of the post-accident changes in the applicant’s social activity because he sees and talks to him every day.
39We find the applicant’s testimony about his pre- and post-accident function in social functioning to be unreliable because it was inconsistent with the evidence before us. For example, his testimony regarding the financial assistance he provided to his children pre-accident was vague. Moreover, during cross-examination, the applicant was confronted with his pre- and post-accident income tax returns which demonstrate that he actually earned more in the years following the accident. Further, a note in the Ontario Works file dated May 5, 2022 states that the applicant “stopped driving a taxi due to COVID,” which we find to be unrelated to the accident. As a result of these inconsistencies, we do not accept the applicant’s testimony that his inability to provide financial assistance to his children post-accident resulted in increased stress and depression.
40Finally, we find the applicant’s brother’s testimony unhelpful because he stated that he sees and talks to the applicant everyday, which was inconsistent with the applicant’s testimony that they no longer speak because of increased tension. Further, the brother acknowledged during cross-examination that he has not seen any of the applicant’s financial records. There was also evidence before us that the applicant’s brother helped him financially before the accident by paying for his tuition for his taxi licence. We were not provided with any supporting documentation to support that the applicant’s brother helped him financially post-accident.
41Of significance, all of the assessors noted that the applicant was pleasant and cooperative and was able to communicate effectively. In fact, during the assessment of OT Zazzara, the applicant joked and laughed throughout the assessment. OT Zazzara also administered the Reintegration to Normal Living Index to assess the degree to which individuals who have experienced traumatic or incapacitating illness achieve integration into normal activities. The Somali interpreter was used to read and record his answers. The applicant scored 73 out of 110 which indicates a high range perception of reintegration to normal living. The report notes his highest scores were 10, which he assigned to the following statements: ‘I move around my community as I feel necessary’ and ‘I am comfortable with how my self-care needs are met.’ He rated the following statements as 9: ‘I move around my living quarters as I feel necessary’ and ‘In general, I am comfortable with my personal relationships.’ He rated his ability to deal with life events as they happen at “8.” We find the applicant’s performance on this index inconsistent with someone who has a marked impairment in social functioning.
42In addition, the applicant declined to do the community outing during both parties’ OT assessments. As a result, we have limited evidence about the applicant’s function while out in the community. We find that other than the applicant’s self-reports about having angry outbursts to the CAT assessors, there is limited evidence about this in any other evidence before us.
43As already highlighted above, we find the reports of Dr. Jwely and OT Moy were heavily based on the applicant’s self-reports. Since we find the applicant’s self-reports about his post-accident function unreliable, we do not accept the marked impairment ratings in Social Functioning assigned by Dr. Jwely.
44In contrast, Dr. Hasan assigned a mild impairment in the sphere of Social Functioning. His report noted that while post-accident the applicant reported socializing less, he still has good relationships with his roommate, children and sister in law.
45For the above-noted reasons, we accept Dr. Hasan’s mild impairment rating.
Adaptation
46We find the applicant has a mild impairment in adaptation for the following reasons.
47The Guides define impairment in adaptation as the repeated failure to adapt to stressful circumstances, in the face of which “the individual may withdraw from the situation or experience exacerbation of signs and symptoms of a mental disorder; that is, decompensate or having difficulty maintaining activities of daily living, continuing social relationships, and completing tasks.” By definition, impairment in adaptation affects the ability to function across all activity areas. Regarding activities of daily living, their quality is judged by their independence, appropriateness, effectiveness and sustainability.
48We find the applicant’s testimony regarding his inability to return to work because of his accident-related cognitive, physical and psychological impairments unreliable. As highlighted above, we find the evidence supports that the applicant stopped working because of the COVID 19 pandemic, not because of any accident-related impairment. We also find that Dr. Jwely’s marked impairment rating in adaptation to be based on the applicant’s self-reports regarding his inability to return to work post-accident. In addition, we find that Dr. Jwely does not refer to any other references in the medical record to support that the applicant has had a repeated failure to adapt to stressful situations because of any accident related impairments. Further, Dr. Jwely heavily relied on the report of OT Moy, which as highlighted above we do not find persuasive.
49In addition, neither party’s psychiatric assessor concluded that the applicant has a marked impairment in activities of daily living. Despite reporting functional limitations with his ability to carry out his personal care, all of the assessors note that the applicant was well groomed and appropriately dressed. Further, he is independent in accessing the community because he goes for walks and he still drives despite reporting driving anxiety. As noted above, we do not find any issues with his ability to communicate. He also independently looks after his own finances. We note that the evidence establishes that has minimal limitations regarding his ability to carry out his daily activities. Moreover, we find his impairment in social functioning to be mild.
50Dr. Hasan assigned a class 2 mild impairment in the domain of adaptation. Dr. Hasan testified that the applicant reported that he was unable to return to work as a full-time Uber driver, however, he reported that he could still drive short distances. Dr. Hasan also testified that the applicant stayed focused for the two hour assessment, he answered questions coherently, completed questionnaires, and was able to recall details of the accident and names of previous health practitioners. We find the observations of Dr. Hasan to be consistent with the applicant’s presentation in OT Zazzara’s assessment. We accept the testimony of Dr. Hasan because he testified to explain his ratings, whereas Dr. Jwely did not.
51Since we have determined that the applicant has a mild impairment in social functioning and adaptation, it is unnecessary for us to address whether he has a marked impairment in concentration persistence and pace. Since we have determined that he has a mild impairment rating in social functioning and adaptation he does not meet CAT status under Criterion 8
52Although we acknowledge that the applicant sustained impairments as a result of the accident which have had a negative impact on his life, we do not find that these impairments meet the CAT threshold under Criterion 8.
ORDER
53For the reasons outlined above, we find:
i. The applicant has not met his onus to prove that he sustained a CAT impairment under Criterion 7 or 8.
ii. The application is dismissed.
Released: December 12, 2025
__________________________
Melissa Shea
Adjudicator
__________________________
Rebecca Hines
Adjudicator