Stacey A. Morrow

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was whether the applicant was employed or self-employed at the time of the accident, as she had been performing freelance online academic writing for a foreign company.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was self-employed, noting the lack of a formal employment relationship, her status as a contract worker, and remuneration based on word count rather than a wage.

Because the applicant reported no self-employment income in the taxation year prior to the accident, the quantum of her IRB was calculated as nil.

The claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's documented pre-existing chronic pain condition and accident-related psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed attendant care, chiropractic, and psychological treatment plans, along with interest, but denied the claim for assistive devices and a special award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The respondent deemed the applicant eligible for IRBs but failed to pay them for nearly two years, ignoring multiple inquiries from the applicant.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the respondent's failure to pay the benefits, despite having the necessary documentation and an accountant's report supporting entitlement, constituted an unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 equal to 50% of the IRBs claimed during the period of delay, plus interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans for physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and dental services, as well as an ambulance fee, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, relying on insurer examination reports indicating the applicant was independent in daily activities.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to prove the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as the applicant did not provide the actual plans or compelling evidence to counter the respondent's medical assessments.

Claims for the ambulance fee, interest, and a special award were similarly dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied treatment plans for psychological services, a gym membership, a Weight Watchers program, and physiotherapy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

The medical evidence, including clinical notes from treating physicians, indicated that the applicant's accident-related injuries had resolved and that her ongoing complaints, including weight gain and soft tissue pain, were attributable to an unrelated endocrine disorder.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The matter proceeded to a hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

At the start of the hearing, the parties advised that they had resolved the file on a full and final basis.

The Tribunal closed the file.

The applicant, a minor, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was removed from the Minor Injury Guideline due to psychological impairments.

The Tribunal held that the treatment plans for massage therapy, chiropractic treatment, physiotherapy, and optometric services were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's ongoing pain and post-concussion symptoms.

However, the Tribunal denied the plans for occupational therapy and social work services, finding them redundant as the applicant had been recommended to participate in a comprehensive hospital pain management program that would adequately address those needs.

Interest was awarded on the approved benefits.

The applicant sought entitlement to a physiatry assessment, a special award, and interest under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the assessment based on its own section 44 physiatry assessment and the applicant's failure to provide requested medical records.

The Tribunal found the physiatry assessment was reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence, but held the insurer was not liable to pay until the applicant cured her section 33 non-compliance by providing the requested records.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's denial was based on a rational assessment of the available information and did not constitute unreasonable conduct.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, medical benefits for physiotherapy, and the cost of a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal first allowed the applicant's late-filed medical evidence due to an administrative error.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefit because he failed to provide a comparison of his pre- and post-accident activities.

The physiotherapy treatment plan was denied as the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden and the respondent's medical evidence indicated he had reached maximum medical recovery.

However, the Tribunal granted the cost of the chronic pain assessment, preferring the evidence of the applicant's chronic pain specialist over the respondent's orthopaedic surgeon.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to non-earner benefits and various medical assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to consider evidence and that the respondent did not provide a proper denial.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal had properly analyzed the evidence, which primarily showed soft tissue injuries, and that no error of law or fact was made that would have led to a different result.

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.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied a treatment plan for catastrophic impairment assessments.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law, violated procedural fairness, and improperly relied on hearsay evidence from hospital records.

The applicant also objected to the original adjudicator hearing the reconsideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that while minor errors were made (such as misidentifying the form as an OCF-25 instead of an OCF-18 and using the word 'synchronous'), they would not have changed the outcome.

The Tribunal also held that hospital records are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule and that having the original adjudicator hear the reconsideration does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant sought payment for a $25,659.25 treatment and assessment plan (OCF-25) for catastrophic impairment assessments following a 2006 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the assessments were not reasonable and necessary, as the medical evidence did not support a causal relationship between the accident and the current complaints, which were similar to those from a prior 2002 accident.

The Tribunal also noted the physical injuries were minor and there was no evidence of psychological impairment.

The claims for the OCF-25, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The claimant, an Ontario resident, was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident in Nunavut while driving a Nunavut-plated vehicle insured by the appellant.

The respondent, the claimant's Ontario insurer, paid Ontario statutory accident benefits and sought reimbursement from the appellant under the priority provisions of the Ontario Insurance Act.

The arbitrator and appeal judge ruled in favour of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not an 'Ontario insurer' for the purposes of the priority dispute and that the Ontario Insurance Act could not be applied extraterritorially to a Nunavut policy for an accident occurring in Nunavut.

Following an arbitration hearing where the applicant was awarded statutory accident benefits, the parties were unable to agree on expenses.

The arbitrator found the applicant was entitled to his expenses given his significant success.

After assessing the claimed legal fees and disbursements for reasonableness, the arbitrator reduced the amounts claimed for expert reports, witness fees, and other disbursements to align with the Expense Regulation maximums.

The applicant was awarded $48,597.95 in total expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The respondent insurer requested that the applicant attend section 44 multidisciplinary examinations.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing the requests were unreasonable and untimely.

The Tribunal applied the six-factor test for reasonableness and found the insurer's requests were reasonable and timely, as they were made after the two-year anniversary of the accident to assess specific criteria.

The Tribunal ordered that the applicant is barred from proceeding with his application until he attends the requested physiatry, psychology, and otolaryngology examinations, and directed the insurer to schedule them within 35 days.

The Applicant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident, sustaining a traumatic brain injury and chronic pain.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, including non-earner, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits, which the Insurer denied or underpaid.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered a complete inability to lead a normal life and awarded non-earner benefits.

The Arbitrator also deemed past attendant care and housekeeping expenses to have been incurred under s. 3(8) of the Schedule, finding that the Insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by failing to advise the impecunious and functionally illiterate Applicant that it would pay for professional services.

However, the Arbitrator declined to order a special award, finding the Insurer's conduct was not sufficiently egregious.

The applicant was catastrophically impaired in a motor vehicle accident and sought attendant care benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant's mother, a trained and certified Personal Support Worker who had not yet obtained employment in her field at the time of the accident, qualified as a professional service provider under section 3(7)(e)(iii)(A) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the mother was actively seeking employment as a PSW prior to the accident and therefore qualified as a professional service provider.

Consequently, she was not required to prove an economic loss to be compensated for providing attendant care services to her son.

The applicant insurer sought to appeal an arbitration decision regarding priority for paying statutory accident benefits for an extra-provincial motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that leave to appeal was not required because the parties had entered into an unwritten arbitration agreement permitting appeals on questions of law or mixed fact and law.

The court found that the parties' conduct and communications evidenced a binding arbitration agreement containing the appeal provision.

Consequently, the applicant was entitled to appeal the arbitrator's decision without leave.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but subsequently failed to comply with a production order, lost contact with his counsel (who was removed from the record), and failed to attend multiple pre-hearings and the preliminary issue hearing.

The Insurer brought a motion to dismiss the arbitration.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant's conduct demonstrated an intention to abandon the proceeding and ordered that the application be deemed constructively withdrawn pursuant to Rule 70(3) of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The Applicant was ordered to pay $600 in expenses.