Paul C. Omeziri

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her ongoing income replacement and psychological benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

She argued she was denied procedural fairness because the insurer's psychological expert did not produce raw test data until mid-hearing, and that the LAT erred in finding the insurer made 'best efforts' to produce the file.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the appellant had sufficient time to review the data during a five-week adjournment and cross-examine the expert.

The Court also found the LAT applied the correct legal test for 'best efforts'.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant 1.5 hours of psychological treatment per session.

The insurer argued the Tribunal reversed the burden of proof and failed to consider relevant evidence regarding the applicant's psychological condition.

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration, finding that while the burden of proof was not reversed, the Tribunal had erred by failing to consider evidence of the applicant's post-accident personal difficulties, including a relationship breakdown and a family member's illness.

Upon reviewing this evidence, the adjudicator concluded the applicant failed to prove the motor vehicle accident caused the need for the additional 0.5 hours of treatment, and varied the original decision.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not receiving Employment Insurance (EI) benefits at the time of the accident.

The applicant's EI benefit period ended on June 30, 2018, and the accident occurred on July 8, 2018, although the applicant received his final EI payment on July 11, 2018.

The Tribunal held that an applicant is only 'receiving benefits' under the Employment Insurance Act during an established benefit period.

Since the benefit period expired before the accident, the applicant was not receiving EI benefits at the time of the accident and was ineligible for an IRB.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment under the Glasgow Coma Scale following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by excluding video footage of a paramedic at the scene and by allowing the respondent's expert neurologist to give opinion evidence outside his report without permitting the applicant to recall his own expert.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the video footage had limited probative value and would not have changed the result given the conflicting medical reports.

The adjudicator also found no error in allowing the respondent's expert to comment on inconsistencies in the reports, noting the applicant failed to demonstrate the evidence was false or misleading.

The applicant sought urgent judicial review of an arbitrator's interim order relieving his counsel from acting in an upcoming Financial Services Commission of Ontario arbitration due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the applicant had not exhausted internal appeal procedures under the Insurance Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The court found no exceptional circumstances or prospect of real unfairness that would justify fragmenting the proceedings and intervening at an interim stage.