Rachel Rebecca Levitsky

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants, a transit commission and its bus driver, to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery and to re-attend to answer follow-up questions.

The underlying action involved a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that collided with a transit bus.

The court ordered the defendants to answer questions regarding the driver's 1996 hiring process and driving history, finding them relevant to the pleadings alleging negligent hiring and supervision.

The court also ordered the defendants to re-attend examinations for discovery to answer proper questions arising from the newly provided answers.

The plaintiff was struck by a vehicle and claimed complex injuries including a traumatic brain injury.

The plaintiff served three expert reports and agreed to attend three corresponding defence medical examinations.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a fourth examination with a neurologist.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had been treated by multiple neurologists who might be called as participant experts at trial to offer opinions on causation.

To ensure trial fairness and level the playing field, the defendant was entitled to a responding neurological examination.

The applicant sought a determination that HST paid for attendant care services should be paid outside the attendant care benefit limit under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and claimed an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found that the Schedule's silence on HST, combined with FSCO Guidelines, should be interpreted in favour of the insured, meaning HST is a tax payable outside the benefit limit.

However, the Tribunal denied the claim for an award, finding the insurer's withholding of payment was based on its own interpretation of the Schedule and did not constitute unreasonable behaviour.

The applicant, who was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident, applied for attendant care benefits in the amount of $3,790.38 per month.

The respondent partially approved the claim in the amount of $2,331.07 per month.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not incurring expenses above the approved amount.

The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary issue, finding that a dispute exists over the quantum of the benefit regardless of whether it has been incurred.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant entitled to $2,997.30 per month in attendant care benefits, concluding that he requires 8 hours of attendant care daily.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that catastrophic impairment (CAT) assessments are not medical benefits subject to the $50,000 limit under s. 18 of the Schedule.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the insurer merely repeated arguments already decided and failed to demonstrate any material error of fact or law.

The adjudicator also granted the applicant $100 in costs, concluding that the insurer's reconsideration request was frivolous and lacked supporting evidence or argument.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that ordered it to pay a registered psychotherapist providing cognitive behaviour therapy at the same hourly rate as a psychologist ($149.61).

The insurer argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction and made errors of law and fact.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no jurisdictional error or significant error of law or fact, as psychotherapists are not listed in the Professional Services Guideline and the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion based on the provider's specialized training and the services rendered.

The applicant's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant sought funding for catastrophic impairment (CAT) assessments totaling $15,872.00, which the insurer denied on the basis that the applicant had exhausted her $50,000 medical and rehabilitation benefit limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that CAT assessments do not constitute a medical or rehabilitation benefit and therefore do not fall within the section 18 funding limits.

Finding the assessments to be reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to fund them.

The applicant's request for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for the balance of a treatment plan for cognitive behaviour therapy provided by a registered psychotherapist.

The respondent insurer had partially approved the plan at a lower hourly rate, arguing that psychotherapists are not listed in the Professional Services Guideline and should not be paid the same rate as psychologists.

The Tribunal found that the psychotherapist was qualified to provide cognitive behaviour therapy and exercised its discretion to award the same hourly rate ($149.61) as a psychologist or psychological associate under the Guideline.

The applicant was awarded the balance of the treatment plan.

The plaintiff, Edward Sobie, as executor of Stanley Sobie's estate, brought a motion for a status hearing, a timetable, and an extension of time to set the action down for trial, and to reconstitute the action.

The defendants opposed and brought cross-motions to dismiss the action for delay, failure to properly constitute the action, and failure to obtain an order to continue.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the significant delay and did not establish that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The court also found that the action was not properly constituted from its inception and that the plaintiff failed to obtain an order to continue after the property's transfer.

Consequently, the plaintiff's action was dismissed with costs.

The third party insurer, CAA, brought a motion for summary judgment to determine if the defendant driver, Jeffrey Sorto Torres, was in possession of his father's (Victor Sorto Rivera) vehicle with or without consent at the time of a motor vehicle accident.

The determination would affect Victor's vicarious liability under the Highway Traffic Act and Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company's uninsured motorist coverage.

The court found that Victor had given implied consent for Jeffrey to possess the vehicle, primarily due to Jeffrey being left in charge of the household and his autistic brother, and the accessibility of car keys.

Consequently, CAA's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against Victor Rivera was dismissed.