Sarah Deol

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he sustained predominantly minor injuries and was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to address his argument regarding the insurer's non-compliance with notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Associate Chair allowed the reconsideration request, finding that the Tribunal's failure to address the live and consequential issue of the sufficiency of the insurer's notices amounted to a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The matter was ordered to be reheard in writing by a different adjudicator.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a case conference order that mandated a four-day in-person hearing, limited each party to four witnesses, and set a surveillance disclosure date.

The applicant argued these orders violated natural justice and procedural fairness, citing cost concerns and the need to call additional expert witnesses.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no evidence that the hearing format was cost-prohibitive or that the witness limit denied procedural fairness.

The surveillance issue was moot as the respondent had no surveillance to disclose.

The respondent insurer requested reconsideration of a Tribunal order denying its request for the applicant to produce clinical notes and records from 29 doctors seen post-accident.

The Tribunal originally denied the request on the basis of proportionality, assuming most records would be in the hospital file.

On reconsideration, the Tribunal granted the request, noting that relevance was undisputed and that 18 of the 29 physicians' records were not included in the hospital file.

The applicant was ordered to produce the records of those 18 physicians, with the respondent undertaking to pay the associated invoices.

The applicant sought an order requiring the respondent insurer to produce all surveillance evidence, regardless of whether the respondent intended to rely on it at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that while the surveillance evidence was relevant, it was protected by litigation privilege.

Surveillance obtained after the applicant filed her application to the LAT was prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation.

Therefore, the respondent was not required to disclose the surveillance unless it intended to rely on it at the hearing.

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

The central issue was whether the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant's medical experts opined that he suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments outside the MIG.

However, the adjudicator preferred the insurer's medical examination and the applicant's own statements, which confirmed he was working full-time, attending school, and maintaining his social life.

The adjudicator concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the application for benefits beyond the MIG cap, as well as claims for interest and a special award.

The applicants sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims and sought repayment of benefits already paid, arguing the accident was staged.

Relying on uncontradicted expert accident reconstruction evidence which showed the physical damage was inconsistent with the drivers' accounts, the arbitrator found the accident was staged and fraudulent.

The applications were dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to repay the benefits received and pay the insurer's arbitration expenses.

The applicant's counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record after the applicant failed to communicate or provide instructions following mediation.

The arbitrator granted the motion to withdraw.

The insurer subsequently brought a motion to dismiss the arbitration as abandoned and vexatious, noting the applicant's failure to attend the pre-hearing or respond to communications.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had effectively abandoned his claims and that continuing the arbitration would be an abuse of process.

The arbitration was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $2,772.07.

The applicant, an 88-year-old pedestrian, was struck by a pole knocked over by a truck insured by the respondent.

She sought interim medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits pending a full arbitration hearing to determine if she is catastrophically impaired.

The applicant had exhausted her non-catastrophic limits and required 24-hour care.

The arbitrator found that the applicant established a prima facie case for catastrophic impairment, noting that the insurer's own neurologist found severe cognitive impairment secondary to the accident, which was improperly omitted from the insurer's multidisciplinary whole person impairment rating.

Considering the applicant's financial hardship, the risk of irreparable harm, the low risk of prejudice to the insurer (who was also the tort insurer), and the delay in scheduling the hearing, the arbitrator granted interim benefits of up to $3,000 per month.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing that the collision did not occur as reported or was staged.

After hearing evidence from the parties, the investigating police officer, and accident reconstruction experts, the arbitrator found significant inconsistencies between the physical evidence and the applicant's testimony.

The arbitrator accepted the insurer's expert evidence that the vehicles' damage and final resting positions were inconsistent with the reported collision.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that an 'accident' occurred.