Robert Bernstein

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits (ACBs), and various medical and rehabilitation treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Applicant was not entitled to IRBs because he failed to provide the insurer with requested information, and was not entitled to ACBs because they were neither reasonable and necessary nor incurred.

However, the Tribunal approved the treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services, preferring the evidence of the Applicant's treating practitioners over the insurer's paper-review assessors.

Claims for occupational therapy and a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that his incident with a transit bus did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by failing to accept his uncontroverted self-reports and by misapplying the Greenhalgh test.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness and no error in its conclusion that the applicant failed to provide objective evidence establishing his injuries were directly caused by the operation of the bus.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after allegedly having his foot run over by a transit bus.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal held a preliminary issue hearing to determine if an accident occurred.

Applying the Greenhalgh framework, the Tribunal found that while the incident met the purpose test, the applicant failed to satisfy the causation test.

The applicant provided no objective evidence, such as witness statements, medical reports linking the injury to the bus, or incident reports, to corroborate his self-reported version of events.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the use or operation of an automobile directly caused his impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant filed an incomplete Request for Hearing in response to a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Application for a mortgage broker licence.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss after the Applicant failed to respond to communications.

The Applicant subsequently retained counsel and filed submissions.

The Tribunal granted the Applicant an extension of time to file a completed Request for Hearing, noting the potential financial consequences of a licence refusal and the lack of immediate harm to the public since the Applicant was not currently licensed.