Peter Durant

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied him substantive benefits after he failed to file written submissions.

Two days before the submission deadline, the applicant's counsel removed himself from the record.

A family member contacted the Tribunal requesting an extension of time to obtain new counsel due to the applicant's language barrier and inability to navigate the process.

The hearing adjudicator was seemingly unaware of this request and proceeded to dismiss the claims.

The Vice-Chair found that proceeding with the hearing under these circumstances constituted a material breach of procedural fairness.

The reconsideration request was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and a rehearing before a different adjudicator was ordered.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, as the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the claim for a psychiatric assessment outside the MIG was denied.

Although the applicant did not meet the substantive test for an income replacement benefit (IRB), the adjudicator awarded IRBs from November 1, 2023, to March 20, 2024, because the insurer's notices denying the benefit failed to comply with the requirements of section 36(4) of the Schedule until March 6, 2024.

The claim for an award for unreasonably withholding benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming the unapproved balance of a treatment plan for psychological services and funding for a catastrophic impairment assessment.

The insurer partially denied the psychological services plan on the basis that the proposed hourly rate for a social worker exceeded the maximum permitted under the Professional Services Guideline, and denied the catastrophic assessment plan.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denial letter complied with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to prove the unapproved psychological services were reasonable and necessary, and failed to demonstrate that her impairments warranted further investigation for a possible catastrophic impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she failed to provide requested medical evidence.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof to be removed from the MIG or to establish entitlement to a non-earner benefit, as she provided no medical evidence to support her claims.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, disputed treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions or psychological symptoms precluded recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the evidence insufficient to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life compared to her pre-accident baseline.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to several treatment plans for psychological, chiropractic, orthopedic, and TMJ services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that most of the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, often due to a lack of corroborating medical evidence or failure to justify the costs and hourly rates claimed.

However, the Tribunal approved a $2,200 treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment, finding reasonable grounds based on contemporaneous medical records and a TMJ assessment report.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded her income replacement benefits (IRBs) for a specific period ending on her intended retirement date.

She argued the Tribunal erred in law by relying on her former counsel's closing submissions and her testimony regarding her retirement, rather than applying the statutory disability test for ongoing entitlement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no error of law or fact.

The original decision correctly granted the exact relief sought by the applicant's counsel at the hearing, and it was not an error to rely on the applicant's sworn testimony and unambiguous submissions of her counsel.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries, including major depression and adjustment disorder with anxiety, warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found the applicant did not meet his burden to prove a psychological impairment, placing less weight on the applicant's psychological assessment due to a lack of objective testing and preferring the respondent's psychological assessment which found no accident-related impairment.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG, the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy were not considered, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing he should be removed from the MIG due to a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a psychological condition warranting removal, noting he returned to work shortly after the accident and his family physician's records contained no psychological complaints.

The application for physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that their injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence despite receiving notice.

As the applicant bore the onus of proof, the Tribunal found they failed to demonstrate entitlement to removal from the MIG, the disputed medical benefit, an award, or interest.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

The Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's expert assessors, noting their reliance on self-reports and lack of supporting medical documentation.

Conversely, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's psychiatric assessment, which concluded the applicant suffered only moderate impairments across the four spheres of functioning.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant also claimed entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence warranting removal from the MIG, relying on insurer examination reports confirming only soft tissue injuries.

The IRB claim was dismissed as the applicant had returned to modified work and continued receiving sick pay, failing to prove a substantial inability to perform essential tasks or provide updated income documentation.

The Tribunal also upheld the respondent's denials of the treatment plans as procedurally valid under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment and assessment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairments, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed physiotherapy, psychological, and chronic pain treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for a special award for unreasonable delay was dismissed, but interest on overdue benefits was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant's representative withdrew prior to the hearing, and the applicant failed to file any written submissions or request an adjournment.

The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing under s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant filed no evidence, he failed to meet his burden of proof.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing because she failed to attend scheduled insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the respondent's notices for two treatment plans complied with the Schedule, barring the applicant from proceeding with those claims.

However, the notices for a third treatment plan and non-earner benefits were non-compliant, allowing the applicant to proceed to a substantive hearing on those issues.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and funding for chiropractic and acupuncture treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, preferring the respondent's occupational therapy assessment over the applicant's vague evidence regarding pre- and post-accident activities.

The treatment plans were also denied as the applicant failed to provide corroborating medical evidence to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal further held that the respondent's denial letters contained sufficient medical reasons under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought payment for various treatment plans, including occupational therapy, psychological and orthopaedic assessments, and workplace modification devices, following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

Medical evidence indicated the applicant had reached functional recovery and returned to pre-accident activities without accommodations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) and an award for unreasonable delay following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment and did not prove a substantial inability to perform those tasks within the first 104 weeks.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment after 104 weeks.

The claim for an award was also dismissed as the applicant provided no evidence or arguments to support it.

This decision addresses a Rule 2.1.01 motion concerning multiple proceedings commenced by the plaintiff, Aynoush Biniaz-Sarabi, arising from a motor vehicle accident and subsequent denial of accident benefits.

The court reviews the history of related litigation, including prior decisions by the Licence Appeal Tribunal and Divisional Court, and considers whether the current and related actions are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Several actions are dismissed under Rule 2.1.01, and the court declines to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant without a formal motion.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to a prior Tribunal decision, and was also outside the two-year limitation period.

Claims for housekeeping, caregiving, and case management benefits were dismissed because the applicant had not been deemed catastrophically impaired and had not purchased optional benefits.

The respondent's request for costs was denied, as the self-represented applicant's conduct was not found to be unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious.