Rupinder K. Tatla

The applicant was injured as a pedestrian in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer under his sister's policy.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant was not an 'insured person' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove he was financially dependent on his sister at the time of the accident.

Furthermore, the applicant was precluded from making an election under s. 59 of the Schedule because he had already received accident benefits from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, a non-earner benefit, and the cost of various assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits or a non-earner benefit, as she failed to prove the expenses were reasonable and necessary or that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a chronic pain assessment and two Assessments of Attendant Care Needs, finding them to be reasonable and necessary expenses, along with applicable interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments sustained after her boyfriend was fatally shot in a drive-by shooting while they were stopped at a red light.

Following the shooting, the applicant drove frantically to what she believed was the nearest hospital, only to find it closed.

She argued her psychological impairments arose from the use and operation of the vehicle during this drive.

The Tribunal applied the Greenhalgh test and found that the dominant feature of the incident was the lethal assault, not the operation of the automobile.

The use of the vehicle was merely ancillary and did not directly cause the impairments.

The application was dismissed as the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Schedule.