Sherilyn J. Pickering

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

The insurer denied the benefits, citing non-compliance with a request for an Employer's Confirmation Form.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than two years after the denial.

The Tribunal found the insurer's denial was clear, unequivocal, and compliant with the principles in Smith, thereby triggering the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the LAT Act, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit and a significant, unexplained delay.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law regarding his claims of a traumatic brain injury, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, and upheld the original decision that the applicant's injuries were minor.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a case conference report and order that unilaterally dismissed 26 issues in dispute.

The adjudicator had dismissed the issues on the mistaken belief that they were duplicative of issues in a prior application.

The Tribunal found that it committed a material breach of procedural fairness by dismissing the issues without providing the parties an opportunity to make written submissions, contrary to Rules 3.4 and 3.5 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

The request for reconsideration was granted, and the 26 issues were reinstated for case management.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law regarding his claims of a traumatic brain injury, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairment.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The Adjudicator confirmed that the original decision properly weighed the medical evidence, correctly applied the criteria for chronic pain, and appropriately assessed the applicant's psychological functionality.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding her entitlement to attendant care benefits and home modifications under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued LAT erred in determining the applicable hourly rates, assessing her need for supervisory care, denying home modifications, and violating her Charter equality rights by distinguishing between mental and physical impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law, as LAT correctly applied the 1996 Schedule rates, provided adequate reasons for preferring the respondent's expert evidence, and appropriately applied the reasonable and necessary test for home modifications.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the denial of treatment plans for a bio-feedback assessment, occupational therapy assessments and services, and assistive devices.

The Tribunal found the occupational therapy assessment and portions of the occupational therapy services and assistive devices to be reasonable and necessary, noting that some devices were duplicative of those already provided to the applicant's spouse.

The claim for the bio-feedback assessment was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish entitlement to the denied portion.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for a special award, finding the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The appellant, a firefighter who responded to the 2018 Toronto van attack, sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments resulting from witnessing the aftermath.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claim, finding the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because the rental van was used as a weapon and the firetruck did not directly cause the injuries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator made no error of law in applying the purpose and causation tests, and rejected the appellant's Charter argument regarding discrimination against mental injuries.

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

She failed to submit her OCF-1 application within the 30-day time limit prescribed by the Schedule, submitting it nearly two years later.

The respondent argued she was statute-barred from proceeding.

The Tribunal found the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay, citing her psychological and cognitive impairments, her mistaken belief that a previous law firm had submitted the form, and confusion caused by the respondent's partial approval of a treatment plan.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant could proceed with her application to a substantive hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including the cost of a replacement helmet, visitor expenses, assistive devices, and the unapproved balances of numerous treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that a helmet constitutes clothing under s. 24(1) of the Schedule and awarded its replacement cost.

The Tribunal also awarded a portion of the claimed visitor expenses that were supported by evidence.

However, the claims for assistive devices and the unapproved balances of the treatment plans were dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary or that they had been submitted to his extended health care provider.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits and several treatment plans for psychological, chiropractic, and occupational therapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the benefits were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer's examination reports over the applicant's medical evidence, noting significant contradictions between the applicant's own examination under oath testimony—where she reported being largely independent and emotionally well—and the severe impairments documented by her assessors.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding that her impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denying her disputed treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator made errors of law and fact regarding her post-traumatic headaches, traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact and noting the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the original hearing.

The Tribunal also held that it was not necessary to determine if the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as section 40(8) of the Schedule deems MIG benefits reasonable and necessary once the MIG is found to apply.

The defendants, Turgut Askar and Beck Taxi Ltd., brought a motion to change the trial venue from Barrie to Toronto.

The plaintiff, Leela Rampersad, opposed the motion.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that Toronto was a "substantially better" venue given the location of the motor vehicle accident, the residences of the parties and most potential witnesses, and the plaintiff's connections to Toronto for employment and medical treatment.

The only connection to Barrie was the location of the plaintiff's counsel.

The minor applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, claiming chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not support a chronic pain diagnosis or establish that the accident was a necessary cause of her psychological impairments, which were likely related to pre-existing family trauma.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claims for a psychological assessment and interest, and granted a confidentiality order initializing the minor's name.

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

The respondent insurer denied benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 funding limit.

The applicant argued he suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome or a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a minor injury, dismissed the claim for a psychological assessment outside the MIG limit, and denied interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 funding limit.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries fell outside the MIG, noting inconsistencies in the medical evidence and a failure to meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain.

The application for medical benefits, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The appellant insurer appealed a preliminary issue decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding whether the respondent's slip and fall incident constituted an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The LAT intervened to raise a preliminary issue regarding the Divisional Court's jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, confirming that appeals lie only from final decisions of the LAT to prevent fragmentation and delay.

The court also declined the parties' joint request to convert the appeal into an application for judicial review.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against TD Canada Trust, arguing errors regarding the availability of summary judgment in civil jury actions, the exclusion of expert evidence, and procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Hryniak test for summary judgment applies equally to civil jury actions, the motion judge properly excluded the expert evidence, and the process was procedurally fair.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a psychological assessment and occupational therapy treatment, plus interest on overdue payments.

The applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed, as there was no evidence the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.

The applicant sought $6,644.45 for a home modification assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent partially approved the assessment up to the $2,000 cap under s. 25(5)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued that a home modification analysis is not an assessment subject to the cap.

The Tribunal found that the home modification assessment involves an appraisal of the applicant's health status and functional limitations, and is therefore subject to the $2,000 cap.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice while exiting her vehicle at a cemetery.

The respondent insurer paid benefits for several years before bringing a motion to determine whether the incident met the definition of an "accident" under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to raise the preliminary issue in a timely manner, as it did not request further information or deny the claim within the timelines prescribed by s. 32 of the Schedule.

In any event, applying the Greenhalgh framework, the Tribunal concluded that the incident was an "accident" because the ongoing activity of exiting the vehicle and the icy conditions were equally dominant features that directly caused the applicant's injuries.