Ryan Mitchell Naimark

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was whether the applicant was employed or self-employed at the time of the accident, as she had been performing freelance online academic writing for a foreign company.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was self-employed, noting the lack of a formal employment relationship, her status as a contract worker, and remuneration based on word count rather than a wage.

Because the applicant reported no self-employment income in the taxation year prior to the accident, the quantum of her IRB was calculated as nil.

The claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought a post-104-week income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffers a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, primarily due to chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's expert assessors over the respondent's assessors, noting that the alternate employment roles proposed by the respondent were not comparable in status or wages.

The applicant was awarded the IRB and interest on overdue payments, but her claim for a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not found to be unreasonable or vexatious.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6, 7, and 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's key expert witness, who failed to attend the hearing for cross-examination, citing procedural fairness.

Relying on surveillance evidence that contradicted the applicant's claims of severe impairment and social isolation, the Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

Consequently, claims for medication expenses beyond the non-catastrophic limit, a special award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The parties agreed on the applicant's entitlement to IRBs at $400 per week, but disputed the effective date, repayment of alleged overpayments, interest, and a special award.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not prove entitlement to $400 per week starting July 1, 2022.

The Tribunal dismissed the insurer's claim for repayment of over $17,000, finding it failed to prove an overpayment or provide proper notice.

The Tribunal awarded interest on two delayed lump sum payments, finding the insurer had sufficient information to calculate the benefits earlier.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered a $2,000 special award against the insurer for unreasonably delaying the proper calculation of benefits and baselessly holding the prospect of repayment over the applicant.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline was provided by the responding party, no costs were ordered.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for an attendant care benefit and other medical benefits.

She argued the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness and errors of law and fact by ignoring evidence, refusing an electronic hearing, and dismissing the attendant care claim in its entirety despite a partial concession by the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the allegedly ignored evidence had not been properly filed, the written hearing format was appropriate, and the entire quantum of the attendant care benefit was properly in dispute.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The issues in dispute included entitlement to interest on previously paid income replacement and attendant care benefits, funding for a new home purchase and modifications, psychological and social rehabilitative services, physical therapies, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to interest on the IRB and ACB payments, as the respondent had already remitted the appropriate amounts.

The claim for a new home and modifications was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove it was more reasonable to purchase a new home than to renovate his existing one.

The Tribunal approved the psychological services and partially approved the social rehabilitative and physical therapies, finding them reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's accident-related impairments.

The claim for an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with the page limit for written submissions.

The applicant, who sustained catastrophic mental and behavioural impairments in a motor vehicle accident, sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, home modifications, and a special award.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal partially approved the treatment plans, allowing funding for physiotherapy, exercise programs, and specific assistive devices that promoted independence, such as a Nespresso machine and slip-on shoes.

However, claims for chiropractic care, massage therapy, a laptop, and a lift chair were denied for lack of medical recommendation or inconsistency with the applicant's demonstrated functionality.

The tribunal also dismissed the claim for over $1.1 million in home modifications and an accessible apartment lease, relying on surveillance evidence showing the applicant could independently traverse stairs.

The request for a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was denied, as the insurer's investigation into overlapping attendant care benefits was deemed reasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to attendant care benefits, incurred attendant care expenses, various medical and rehabilitation benefits, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden, largely due to significant discrepancies between her written submissions and her hearing brief, which omitted crucial evidence.

The applicant failed to prove that the proposed attendant care and medical benefits were reasonable and necessary, or that the claimed expenses were incurred.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits, medical benefits, and assessments, following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held a written hearing to resolve the disputes.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the applicant's case was significantly hampered by discrepancies between her written submissions and her hearing brief, including missing evidence and failure to pinpoint relevant documents.

The applicant failed to meet her onus to prove entitlement to attendant care benefits, incurred expenses, or the reasonableness and necessity of the proposed treatment and assessment plans.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to physiotherapy services, assistive devices, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a duplication of services and lack of justification for the assistive devices.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a s. 10 award, finding that the insurer did not act unreasonably in delaying the catastrophic impairment determination until it received the necessary diagnostic imaging reports.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired in a motor vehicle accident, sought payment for outstanding balances on five treatment plans (OCF-18s) that were partially denied by the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the full $200 form completion fees for case management, occupational therapy, and social work plans, as well as the outstanding balance for laser therapy and acupuncture due to the respondent's failure to provide proper medical reasons for denial under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for transportation costs and additional social work session time, finding the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.

The applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that her incident did not constitute an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact regarding the mechanics of the collision and the assessment of witness testimony.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate the original findings and failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged incident where she claimed her motorized wheelchair was struck by a vehicle in a crosswalk.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that no 'accident' occurred.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for an accident and found no objective evidence supporting a collision, noting conflicting accounts from the applicant and corroborating witness testimony that the applicant simply lost control of her wheelchair and fell.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove the incident arose out of the use or operation of an automobile.

The applicant sought payment for chiropractic, occupational therapy, and social work treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the plans based on insurer's examinations concluding the applicant had no accident-related impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his onus to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence and failure to disclose medical records.

The application for accident benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including medical/rehabilitation benefits and attendant care benefits, which were denied by the respondent insurer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that one of the respondent's denial letters was non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, entitling the applicant to the balance of an occupational therapy treatment plan.

The Tribunal also found a treatment plan for physiotherapy and massage partially reasonable and necessary.

The remaining claims for chiropractic services, attendant care, out-of-pocket expenses, and a special award were dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which had dismissed their motion to disqualify the insurer's counsel and adjuster for alleged conflict of interest and privacy breaches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review of administrative decisions should not be brought until the tribunal proceedings are complete, and the applicants failed to establish that this was a rare case warranting early intervention.

This motion concerned the approval of a settlement for the minor plaintiff's Family Law Act claim, arising from a vehicle collision.

The court initially sought additional evidence regarding the minor's claim for loss of care, guidance, and companionship, as the proposed $40,000 settlement was solely for the mother.

Supplementary evidence confirmed the minor's life remained undisturbed and he required no treatment despite his mother's 51-day hospitalization.

The court was satisfied the settlement was in the minor's best interests and complied with Rule 7.08, granting the approval.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a motion order which found he did not provide a reasonable explanation for filing his application for statutory accident benefits outside the prescribed time limits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact regarding his knowledge of the SABS, his belief that his injuries would resolve, and the adequacy of the insurer's notice of consequences for late filing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no significant legal or evidentiary mistakes that would warrant reconsideration.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of s. 37(4) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) regarding an insurer's obligation to provide reasons for terminating income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) found the applicant's claim time-barred, as Allstate's termination letter, which cited the applicant's return to full-time work, was deemed sufficient.

The Divisional Court overturned this, holding that s. 37(4) required medical reasons in all termination letters, interpreting "medical and any other reasons" conjunctively.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, finding the Divisional Court erred in its interpretation.

The Court of Appeal held that "and" in s. 37(4) can be interpreted in a joint or several sense, meaning medical reasons are not required if the termination is based solely on a non-medical ground, such as return to work.

The insurer's letter was found to comply with the SABS, and the limitation period was validly triggered.