Siona V. Sullivan

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic and physiotherapy services.

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

The applicant argued that her pre-existing degenerative disc disease in her cervical spine and left shoulder prevented her from achieving maximal recovery, thereby removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a pre-existing condition, she failed to provide compelling evidence that it prevented her from achieving maximal recovery.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries fell within the MIG and dismissed the claims for medical benefits and interest.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a case conference order that allowed an adjuster to represent themselves and warned that failure to attend the resumed case conference would result in the application being dismissed.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the proceeding was ongoing, the request was dismissed.

The applicants, two brothers who suffered severe burns in a garage explosion while replacing a vehicle's fuel pump, sought reconsideration of a decision finding their injuries did not result from an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

They argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by failing to analyze the Causation Test after finding the Purpose Test was not met, and alleged errors of fact and law regarding the vehicle's operability.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, holding there is no requirement to consider the Causation Test if the Purpose Test fails, and finding no errors of fact or law that would have led to a different conclusion.

The appellant, a five-year-old child injured after falling from a fire truck at a birthday party, appealed an arbitrator's decision denying her claim for statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator had found the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' because the fire truck was being used for entertainment rather than as a motor vehicle, and awarded costs to the respondent insurer.

The appellant sought a stay of the costs order pending the appeal.

The Director's Delegate granted the stay, finding the appeal was bona fide, had substantive grounds, and that the balance of hardship favoured the appellant.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict awarding damages under the Family Law Act following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

They argued the trial judge erred by failing to correct inflammatory comments by the respondents' counsel, allowing a loss of income claim without actuarial evidence, and that the $200,000 award to the deceased's mother for loss of care, guidance and companionship was grossly excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the jury addresses and the loss of income claim, finding the trial judge's instructions were sufficient and actuarial evidence is not strictly required.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by reducing the mother's award for loss of care, guidance and companionship to $125,000, finding the original amount exceeded the permissible range.