Shelby Chung

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $34,000 in settlement funds paid directly to the self-represented respondent, arguing the funds were paid in error because a Full and Final Release directed payment to the respondent's former legal counsel in trust.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while the Settlement Disclosure Notice falls under its jurisdiction, the Full and Final Release does not.

The Tribunal concluded the insurer fulfilled its obligations under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule by paying the insured directly, and the dispute over the trust direction was a contractual solicitor-client issue outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for occupational therapy, social rehabilitation counselling, rehabilitation therapy, and psychological services.

The Tribunal found the applicant entitled to the outstanding balance for occupational therapy and the full amount for rehabilitation therapy, as medical evidence supported their necessity for addressing cognitive and functional impairments.

However, the Tribunal denied the plans for social rehabilitation counselling and psychological services due to insufficient evidence, duplication, and non-compliance with the Professional Services Guideline.

Claims for a section 10 award and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and seeking a non-earner benefit and various medical benefits.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet his evidentiary burden to demonstrate entitlement to the disputed benefits or removal from the Minor Injury Guideline.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle collision and settled his claims for statutory accident benefits with the respondent insurer, providing a full and final release.

He later sought additional benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder, which the insurer denied based on the settlement.

The License Appeal Tribunal dismissed his claim because he had not returned the settlement funds as required by s. 9.1(8) of Regulation 664.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that repayment of settlement funds is a mandatory precondition to applying to the Tribunal, and there is no exemption for impecuniosity.

The moving party, who resides in Bangladesh, brought a motion to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee as his litigation guardian for his appeal of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The court reviewed the medical and psychological evidence submitted and found it insufficient to establish that the moving party was a person under a disability incapable of understanding or appreciating relevant information about his appeal.

The motion was dismissed, but the court lifted a previous stay on the appeal, finding it was properly authorized.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical/rehabilitation benefits (chiropractic and occupational therapy) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary onus to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment within 104 weeks, or a complete inability to engage in suitable employment thereafter.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding statutory accident benefits.

The appellant's father, who is not a lawyer, sought to represent him, claiming the appellant suffers from a mental disability.

After a previous motion to appoint the father as litigation guardian was dismissed, the court provided directions for the father to bring a motion to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee to act on the appellant's behalf.

The moving party, who is not a lawyer, brought a motion to be appointed as litigation guardian for the appellant, who allegedly suffers from a mental disability following a motor vehicle accident.

The court dismissed the motion because the moving party failed to file the required affidavit evidence and meet the other mandatory requirements under Rule 7.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also stayed the underlying appeal pending evidence of who filed the notice of appeal and under what authority.

The appellant, who resides in Bangladesh and allegedly suffers from a mental disability, sought to be represented by a non-lawyer in an appeal from the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The court held that under the Rules of Civil Procedure, a non-lawyer cannot represent a party in the Divisional Court.

The court adjourned the case management conference to allow the non-lawyer to bring a motion to be appointed as a litigation guardian and to retain legal counsel, as required for parties under a disability.

The scheduled appeal date was vacated.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from pursuing an income replacement benefit because he failed to provide reasonably required financial information to the insurer under section 33(1) of the Schedule.

However, the applicant was not barred from pursuing a psychological assessment despite missing an Insurer's Examination, as the insurer's notices failed to provide meaningful medical reasons as required by section 44(5).

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal denied the psychological assessment and therapy as not reasonable and necessary due to a lack of corroborating medical evidence, but awarded the applicant up to $2,500 for an accounting report used to calculate his income replacement benefit.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that dismissed his claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal had previously ruled it could not adjudicate the dispute because the applicant had not met the mandatory requirements under section 9.1(8) of Regulation 664 to rescind a settlement agreement.

On reconsideration, the applicant argued the Tribunal failed to consider his submissions and reiterated that the settlement did not cover rehabilitation benefits.

The Vice-Chair found no error of law or fact, concluding the original decision properly considered the submissions and correctly determined the jurisdictional issue.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied four treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered minor soft tissue injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's section 44 medical assessments, which found the applicant had returned to work and normal activities, and noted a lack of corroborating clinical records for the applicant's self-reported symptoms.

The application was dismissed, and the treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

The parties entered into a full and final settlement for $13,000.

The applicant subsequently applied to the Tribunal to dispute the settlement, arguing that rehabilitation benefits were not included.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not returned the settlement funds.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that under section 9.1(8) of Regulation 664, an applicant must return the money received as consideration for a settlement before applying to the Tribunal.

As the applicant failed to do so, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

This appeal addresses a priority dispute between insurers regarding Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS) where the claimant had basic mandatory SABS coverage from one insurer (Chubb) and both basic mandatory and optional enhanced SABS coverage from another (Continental).

The Superior Court Appeal Judge (SCAJ) had found the claimant was not a "deemed named insured" under Continental's policy, making Chubb the priority insurer for basic SABS, but still held Continental liable for all SABS under an OPCF 47 endorsement, ordering Chubb to reimburse Continental for basic SABS.

The Court of Appeal upheld the SCAJ's finding that the claimant was not a "deemed named insured" under Continental's policy, clarifying that "regular use" requires actual use, not just theoretical access.

However, the Court of Appeal reversed the SCAJ's decision on reimbursement, holding that the OPCF 47 endorsement displaces the statutory priority rules (s. 268 of the Insurance Act) for the optional benefits insurer, meaning Continental, as the OPCF 47 insurer, is solely responsible for both basic mandatory and optional enhanced SABS without a right to reimbursement from Chubb.

B.H., charged with sexual assault and other offences, brought a motion for directions to determine if voicemail messages left by the complainant for him were "records" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court analyzed whether the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in these messages, considering the nature of the information and the context of their creation.

The court concluded that the complainant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore the messages were not "records" requiring an application under ss. 278.93 and 278.94 for admission at trial.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and limited the cost of a psychological assessment to the remainder of the MIG limit.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in fact by preferring one psychological report over another and erred in law by approving the assessment without removing him from the MIG.

The Vice-Chair denied the request, finding no significant errors of fact or law, as the Tribunal correctly assessed the medical evidence and logically concluded that approving an assessment does not automatically remove an applicant from the MIG.

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

The respondent denied ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) and took the position that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to IRBs beyond August 3, 2016, as medical evidence did not establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of their pre-accident employment.

However, the Tribunal determined that the applicant suffered psychological injuries, including driver and passenger phobia and a depressive disorder, which removed them from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed psychological assessment and the treatment plan for chiropractic, massage, and physiotherapy were deemed reasonable and necessary and were approved with interest.

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

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the application was submitted late without a reasonable explanation, and therefore denied a chiropractic treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay, as she had separated from her husband and moved out of the home where the application forms were sent.

The Tribunal also found the chiropractic treatment plan to be reasonable and necessary, and awarded the medical benefit of $3,712.74 along with interest.

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

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

The applicant contended he suffered psychological impairments removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological issues were not proven to be accident-related, keeping him within the MIG's $3,500 limit.

The requested psychological assessment was deemed reasonable and necessary but only payable up to the MIG limit, while the psychological treatment and a claim for a special award were denied.

The applicant sought reinstatement of an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $400 per week following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer had suspended the IRB after 44 weeks based on insurer's examinations indicating the applicant no longer met the criteria.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant's failure to comply with multiple production orders for employment and financial documentation, which severely undermined her case.