Robert P. Bowman

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a 2015 motor vehicle accident, sought entitlement to tutoring support for her daughter, attendant care benefits, and home modifications.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for tutoring support, finding no evidence that the daughter required a tutor.

While the Tribunal found the applicant's attendant care needs were $3,155.86 per month based on her psychological and cognitive impairments, it denied payment because the expenses had not been incurred.

The claim for home modifications was dismissed as the applicant failed to connect the proposed modifications to her accident-related impairments.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders under Criterion 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a marked impairment in three domains of functioning: activities of daily living, adaptation, and social functioning, preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychiatrist over the respondent's.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was catastrophically impaired.

However, the applicant's claim for a psychological services treatment plan was dismissed as he failed to provide evidence establishing it was reasonable and necessary.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction because he had not returned $90,000 in settlement funds as required by s. 9.1(8) of Regulation 664.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law by not first determining if the settlement was valid and breached procedural fairness by not ruling on a motion to strike reply submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or breach of procedural fairness, as the return of settlement funds is a mandatory precondition to disputing a settlement's validity.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought attendant care benefits (ACBs) of $6,000 per month, claiming a need for 24-7 supervision due to physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments.

The respondent argued the applicant only required just under four hours of care per day.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding cognitive decline unreliable and noted limitations in both parties' occupational therapy assessments.

Taking a practical approach based on the evidence, the Tribunal determined the applicant did not require 24-7 supervision but was entitled to ACBs in the amount of $2,724.28 per month.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's impairments were compatible with some useful functioning and did not reach the marked impairment threshold in three of four spheres of function.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims for attendant care benefits, finding the provider did not qualify as a professional under the Schedule and no economic loss was proven.

Claims for various treatment plans and a section 10 award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

The Insurer requested an adjournment of the arbitration hearing after receiving new expert reports from the Applicant near the end of the 30-day period preceding the hearing.

The Arbitrator granted the adjournment to allow the Insurer to respond to the evidence.

The Applicant subsequently sought expenses incurred as a result of the adjournment.

The Arbitrator dismissed the Applicant's request for expenses, finding that while the Applicant complied with the strict timelines, serving the reports at the last possible moment severely prejudiced the Insurer's ability to respond.

As the Insurer was successful in obtaining the adjournment and did not request its own expenses, the Arbitrator ordered each party to bear its own costs.