Ryan Samuel Kirshenblatt

The applicant was injured in a bicycle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer scheduled an insurer examination with a neuropsychologist, providing notice that it would be a 'paper review' and attendance was not required.

However, the applicant attended an in-person examination.

The applicant brought a motion to exclude the resulting reports, arguing the notice was defective under s. 44(5) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the notice was invalid and prejudiced the applicant by denying him the opportunity to provide relevant information prior to the assessment.

The Tribunal excluded the neuropsychologist's evidence from the in-person examination but found the applicant's request to preclude further examinations premature.

The applicant sought medical benefits and costs of examinations under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2012 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the requested MRI and orthopedic assessment were reasonably available through OHIP as a collateral provider.

The Tribunal further held that the requested physiotherapy, orthopedic assessment, and chronic pain assessment were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support the treatment plans.

The applicant was injured in a bicycle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant filed a motion to exclude the evidence of an independent medical examiner.

The respondent failed to file its written submissions responding to the exclusion motion by the deadline due to an administrative error, although it did file its affidavit and brief on time.

The respondent brought a motion to extend the time to file its written submissions.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding that the error was inadvertent, the respondent moved quickly to rectify it, and denying the extension would unfairly limit the respondent's participation and deny it the opportunity to present its case fully.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, applied for statutory accident benefits including an income replacement benefit (IRB), physiotherapy, massage therapy, and dental services.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment, relying on the objective medical evidence of the insurer's physiatrist.

The Tribunal also found the requested physiotherapy and massage therapy were not reasonable and necessary, and the massage therapy was incurred without an approved treatment plan.

The dental claim was withdrawn by the applicant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the applicant was not entitled to the claimed treatment plans for physiotherapy, attendant care assessment, or psychological assessment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically funding for psychotherapy services and a chronic pain assessment.

The adjudicator found the psychotherapy treatment plan reasonable and necessary, relying on the respondent's own psychological assessment which indicated the applicant needed further treatment to reach maximal recovery.

However, the claim for a chronic pain assessment was dismissed, as the applicant had returned to full-time work, had large gaps in treatment, and the respondent's medical examinations concluded further assessment was unnecessary.

The applicant was awarded the psychotherapy benefits with interest.

Following a successful arbitration for statutory accident benefits, the applicant sought an award for expenses.

The arbitrator found the applicant was entitled to expenses based on his success at the hearing.

Applying a 4:1 ratio for preparation to hearing time, the arbitrator awarded counsel fees at the legal aid rate, partial paralegal fees, and disbursements, totaling $17,023.43.

The applicant was struck by a car while riding his bicycle and applied for income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant was not employed on the date of the accident.

The applicant claimed he was working as a cook and was paid in cash for his last days of work, but the documentary evidence, including a Record of Employment and paycheques, indicated his employment ended prior to the accident.

The adjudicator found the oral evidence of the applicant and his witnesses regarding cash payments and work schedules to be inconsistent and unreliable.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant was not employed on the day of the accident and dismissed the claim for IRBs.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits from the Insurer.

The Insurer terminated IRBs and denied certain treatment plans.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered from chronic pain and was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment, and completely unable to engage in any reasonably suited employment post-104 weeks, entitling him to ongoing IRBs.

The Arbitrator also approved the disputed medical benefits and the cost of an OCF-3 certificate.

Furthermore, the Arbitrator ordered the Insurer to pay a special award of 50% of the outstanding IRBs and interest, finding that the Insurer had unreasonably withheld payments by failing to assess quantum or pay IRBs despite the Applicant's eligibility.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits.

The insurer requested tax documents under section 33 of the Schedule, which the applicant failed to provide.

The insurer subsequently refused to pay the benefits, placing the applicant in non-compliance.

The applicant filed an application for dispute resolution more than two years after the refusal.

The Tribunal held that the refusal to pay stemming from a section 33 non-compliance triggered the two-year limitation period under section 56.

As the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and filed outside the limitation period, the application was statute-barred and dismissed.

A post-hearing motion for an award and costs was also dismissed.

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

The applicant failed to attend two pre-hearing discussions and the arbitration hearing itself.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to Rule 37.9 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code and dismissed the application because the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.

The insurer was awarded $1,964.35 in expenses due to the applicant's conduct in unnecessarily prolonging the proceeding.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged rear-end collision.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident was staged.

At a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator considered evidence from a police officer and an accident reconstruction expert, both of whom testified that the vehicle damage and resting positions were inconsistent with a rear-end collision.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that an 'accident' occurred within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant, a Quebec resident, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Ontario.

She initially received income loss benefits from the Quebec SAAQ, which were later terminated.

She then applied for income replacement benefits in Ontario from the respondent insurer.

The respondent brought a preliminary issue motion arguing the applicant was precluded from claiming benefits in Ontario because she was a Quebec resident and the SAAQ was her primary source of benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that the applicant met the definition of an 'insured person' under the Schedule because the accident occurred in Ontario.

The Tribunal held that the Schedule permits an insured person to claim benefits in Ontario even if they have received benefits in another jurisdiction, provided there is no double recovery for the same time period.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice at a gas station.

He had finished refueling his vehicle, left it parked at the pump, and was walking back to his car after paying inside the convenience store when he fell.

The insurer denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The arbitrator applied the two-part test and found that the incident did not arise out of the ordinary use or operation of an automobile, and even if it did, the use or operation did not directly cause the impairment.

The slip and fall on ice was an intervening event.

The application for arbitration was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, including caregiving, attendant care, and housekeeping.

The insurer scheduled section 42 insurer's examinations to assess her ongoing entitlement.

The applicant refused to attend, stating she was exhausted and felt she would not meet the disability tests.

The insurer suspended her benefits.

In a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator found that the applicant failed to attend the scheduled examinations without a reasonable explanation.

Consequently, the applicant is precluded from seeking entitlement to those benefits during the period of non-compliance.

The applicant failed to attend a preliminary issue hearing regarding whether she was involved in a motor vehicle accident.

Her counsel appeared to request removal from the record due to a loss of communication, noting that the applicant had failed to complete settlement documents and her contact numbers were disconnected.

The arbitrator granted counsel's request to be removed.

The insurer requested that the arbitration be dismissed with expenses.

Given the applicant's failure to attend or communicate, the arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $1,500.

The insurer brought a preliminary motion to introduce new evidence consisting of documents from the applicant's family law proceeding, which were served outside the 30-day time limit under Rule 39.1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The arbitrator found that the unexpected receipt of the documents from the applicant's sister constituted extraordinary circumstances under Rule 39.2, and admitted the evidence as it was highly relevant to the applicant's claimed disability.

The applicant's request for an adjournment to review and respond to the new evidence was granted on consent.

The defendants appealed a master's order dismissing their motion to compel answers to a demand for particulars in an action alleging fraud and misrepresentation.

The motion had been dismissed because the defendants did not file an affidavit stating that the requested particulars were necessary to plead.

The court held that under Rule 25.06(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, full particulars are mandatory where fraud is alleged and affidavit evidence from the moving party is not required to obtain them.

The court further held that the plaintiffs’ affidavit of documents and production of extensive documentation did not sufficiently identify the specific fraudulent acts alleged.

The appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs were ordered to provide detailed particulars of each alleged fraud.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to strike numerous requests to admit served by the plaintiff and to prohibit the plaintiff from serving further requests, alleging abuse of process and an attempt to circumvent the limits on oral discovery under Rule 31.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court considered Rule 51 governing requests to admit and the jurisprudence addressing excessive or abusive use of such requests.

While some requests were imperfectly drafted, the court held that most were relevant and that the Rules impose no numerical limit on requests to admit so long as they are served more than 20 days before trial.

The circumstances did not approach the extreme situations in prior cases where restrictions were imposed.

The motion was dismissed and the defendants were expected to respond to the outstanding requests.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

After his counsel withdrew due to a breakdown in communication, the applicant failed to attend a pre-hearing and the motion to dismiss.

The arbitrator found the applicant had abandoned the proceeding and granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the arbitration.

The insurer was awarded $1,000 in costs thrown away.