Patrick Brown

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he was not catastrophically impaired under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the French version of the Schedule, by reading a temporal requirement into the word 'with', and by exceeding its jurisdiction in addressing absurd results.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the French version argument was a new issue that could not be raised on reconsideration, the temporal interpretation was legally sound, and the comments on absurd results were obiter.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he was not catastrophically impaired under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the French version of the Schedule, by creating a temporal requirement for positive imaging, and by exceeding its jurisdiction in addressing absurd results.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the French version argument was not raised at the hearing and could not be introduced as a new argument, the temporal interpretation was legally sound, and the comments regarding absurd results were obiter.

The 13-year-old applicant was struck by a vehicle and sustained a fractured femur and a traumatic brain injury.

He applied for a catastrophic impairment designation under section 3.1(1) 5.i of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule based on a positive SPECT scan conducted months after his hospital discharge.

The Tribunal held that the word 'with' in the provision requires the positive finding of intracranial pathology to occur while the insured is admitted on an in-patient basis.

Because the applicant's positive scan occurred months later, he did not meet the statutory criteria for catastrophic impairment.

The applicant and her counsel failed to attend a scheduled resumption of a pre-hearing discussion regarding statutory accident benefits.

The applicant's counsel had decided attendance was unnecessary but failed to notify the Commission or the insurer's counsel, resulting in wasted preparation time.

The arbitrator found this conduct tended to prolong, obstruct, or hinder the proceeding under s. 12(2) of O. Reg. 664.

The applicant was ordered to pay $300 to the insurer forthwith for costs thrown away.