Paul Oddi

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the applicant was involved in an 'accident' after being struck by a wheel loader.

The respondent argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and erred in law and fact by misapplying the 'ordinary parlance' test from Adams and improperly weighing evidence regarding a police accident report.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondent had the opportunity to make submissions on the Adams test at the hearing and was improperly attempting to re-litigate the case and reweigh evidence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant was struck by a Caterpillar wheel loader equipped with a snow plow while walking on a public roadway.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the wheel loader was not an 'automobile' and thus the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the Adams test and found that the wheel loader was an automobile in ordinary parlance, given its purpose, function, and features such as a steering wheel, braking system, and capability of driving on public roads.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was involved in an accident, but declined to order a special award against the respondent.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for a chiropractic treatment plan.

The respondent initially denied the plan but paid it after the applicant filed an appeal with the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The applicant subsequently sought costs of the proceeding and a special award, alleging the respondent unreasonably withheld payment.

The Tribunal dismissed both claims, finding the respondent's initial denial and request for updated medical records was not unreasonable given the prior medical evidence indicating the applicant had recovered.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of unreasonable or bad faith conduct during the proceeding to justify a costs award.