Raymond Ashurov

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after injuring his right leg while being placed in the back seat of a police vehicle.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' and that the applicant was statute-barred for providing late notice.

The Tribunal found that the incident met the definition of an accident, as being a seated passenger in a police vehicle is an ordinary use, and the vehicle's use was the dominant feature of the injury, which ultimately led to a below-the-knee amputation.

The Tribunal also found the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the late notice due to his severe medical complications and lack of sophistication.

The applicant was awarded $2,200.00 for an orthopaedic assessment.

The appellants, small and mid-size businesses, appealed a class action decision regarding business interruption insurance claims stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

They sought coverage for revenue losses, arguing that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 or civil authority orders constituted "physical loss or damage" to their property under their insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that neither the virus's presence nor the civil authority orders met the "physical loss or damage" criteria for business interruption coverage.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied three treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator made errors of law and fact, and sought to introduce new evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the only error was an inconsequential typo (referring to the respondent as 'Aviva'), and that the new evidence either could have been obtained prior to the document exchange deadline or would not have changed the outcome.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, placing the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain that would remove him from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the psychological assessment was not payable.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The applicant sought accident benefits for psychological injuries following a motor vehicle accident, arguing they fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, preferring the respondent's neuropsychological assessment which found evidence of malingering over the applicant's psychological report.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for a psychological assessment and treatment plan, finding the assessment costs were incurred prematurely and the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.