Sherzod Karimov

The applicant law firm sought a charging order against its former client, Christine Roberts, and her accident benefits insurer, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, for legal fees and disbursements incurred in pursuing accident benefits and a potential tort claim.

The court found that the statutory and common law criteria for a charging order or lien were not met, as there was no property recovered or preserved through the solicitor’s efforts.

The court also noted that any assignment of SABS benefits would be void by statute.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain assessment and multidisciplinary chronic pain treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment and assessment were reasonable and necessary, noting her significant pre-accident medical history of fibromyalgia and chronic pain, her return to full-time work, and the lack of corroborating medical evidence beyond a flawed expert report.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award under O. Reg. 664 were also denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a chiropractic treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plan, arguing the applicant's shoulder impairment was related to a pre-existing condition.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary, concluding the accident exacerbated the pre-existing condition based on extensive medical evidence.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for an award, finding the respondent did not act unreasonably in its denial, but awarded interest on the overdue benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while working as a personal support worker.

The respondent insurer argued the applicant was precluded from claiming statutory accident benefits because she opted out of WSIB benefits solely to claim accident benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant had a bona fide intent to pursue a tort action and was not precluded under s. 61(2) of the Schedule.

However, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), rejecting her claims of chronic pain, mild traumatic brain injury, and psychological impairment due to a lack of objective medical evidence.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted and the insurer's denial notices were compliant with s. 38(8), the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or assessments.

The applicant sought entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various medical and rehabilitation benefits, and the cost of assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he continued to engage in many pre-accident activities and was employed at the time of the accident.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, a functional ultrasound, a chronic pain assessment, and a cognitive assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary given the soft-tissue nature of the injuries.

The respondent was ordered to pay $460.00 for the outstanding cost of a psychological assessment, but claims for an award and interest were dismissed.