Shahzad Ayub

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the chiropractic treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence and reliance on the treatment plans themselves.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's s. 44 assessment reports which concluded further facility-based treatment would not provide substantive benefit for the applicant's soft-tissue injuries.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for psychological treatment, finding the applicant failed to respond to the insurer's request for further information under s. 33 of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) and funding for psychological treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, as he provided no job description or details of his essential tasks.

The Tribunal also denied the psychological treatment plans, concluding they were not reasonable and necessary because they duplicated OHIP-funded psychiatric services the applicant was already receiving.