Ramandeep Minhas

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being assaulted and robbed while walking in a park.

During the assault, the applicant fled to his parked vehicle for shelter.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the incident did not meet the purpose or causation tests, as walking to a parked vehicle is not the use or operation of an automobile, and the assault was the dominant feature causing the injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for a catastrophic impairment designation, income replacement benefits (IRBs), and an award.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator breached procedural fairness and erred in law by failing to consider his income tax records, which were included in his voluminous document brief but not specifically pointed out during the hearing.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to meet his onus to identify and rely on the evidence during the hearing, despite multiple reminders.

The adjudicator concluded that it would be an error of law for the Tribunal to make the applicant's case for him, and the reconsideration process is not an opportunity to present arguments or evidence that should have been raised at the hearing.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits and a catastrophic impairment (CAT) designation following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the accident contributed to the applicant's psychological impairment, the applicant's self-reports were not credible due to significant inconsistencies regarding his pre-accident health and functional status.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning and therefore did not meet the CAT threshold.

All claims for income replacement benefits, attendant care, and medical benefits were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable, necessary, or incurred.