The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing her application for catastrophic impairment benefits because she failed to attend an insurer's psychiatric examination.
The appellant argued the LAT erred in law by barring her entire application and breached procedural fairness.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law as the appellant's counsel had confirmed to the LAT that non-CAT benefits were exhausted, making the CAT designation a prerequisite.
The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the appellant had ample opportunity to make submissions and attend rescheduled examinations.
