Rebecca J. Brown

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that denied a retroactive Form 1 for attendant care benefits, 24/7 supervisory care, and applied the 2010 Schedule's definition of 'incurred' expenses and interest rate.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact and breached procedural fairness.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no error of law regarding the retroactive Form 1, as the applicant failed to provide evidence of urgency or impracticability.

The Adjudicator also found no error in applying the 2010 Schedule's definition of 'incurred' and interest rate, citing section 268(1) of the Insurance Act.

Finally, the Adjudicator concluded there was no misapprehension of evidence regarding the applicant's need for supervisory care, as the original decision properly weighed the testimony of multiple witnesses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently in a bicycle accident.

He sought medical benefits for chiropractic treatment, which the insurer denied on the basis that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a psychological injury or a pre-existing condition that would remove him from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for further medical benefits and interest.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claim for ongoing income replacement benefits following three motor vehicle accidents.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact regarding medical reports, erred in law by not finding the insurer breached the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule when terminating and suspending benefits, violated procedural fairness, and that new medical evidence was available.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request, finding the Tribunal's factual conclusions were open to it on the evidence, no errors of law were made regarding the insurer's obligations under sections 33 and 37 of the Schedule, no breach of procedural fairness occurred, and the applicant failed to explain why the new evidence could not have been obtained prior to the hearing.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents and sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond the initial period paid by the insurer.

The insurer suspended and later denied further IRBs after the applicant initially failed to attend an Examination Under Oath (EUO).

The Tribunal found that the insurer did not act in bad faith in scheduling the EUO.

On the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment beyond the initial recovery period.

The application for ongoing IRBs, interest, costs, and a special award was dismissed.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until returning to work.

The insurer sent a letter discontinuing benefits and warning of a two-year limitation period to dispute the refusal.

The appellant later stopped working due to her injuries and sought reinstatement of benefits, which the insurer denied as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissing the action, confirming that the limitation period began running upon the valid refusal of benefits, and was not delayed by the temporary return to work provision in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.