Stacey N. Karellas

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as she failed to establish that her physical injuries or chronic pain warranted removal.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a $2,000 chronic pain assessment because the respondent's denial letter failed to provide sufficient medical reasons, violating section 38(8) of the Schedule.

Claims for physiotherapy and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of income replacement benefits (IRBs) paid to the respondent following a motor vehicle accident, alleging willful misrepresentation.

The respondent did not attend the case conference or provide submissions for the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent willfully misrepresented her post-accident employment status by working for multiple employers while receiving IRBs and failing to disclose this to the insurer.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to repay $13,947.79, the amount specified in the insurer's notice of repayment, along with applicable interest.

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

The respondent brought a motion to exclude new evidence submitted by the applicant, including a psychiatric assessment report by Dr. Mamelak.

The Tribunal granted the motion to exclude the new evidence, finding it could have been obtained earlier and was an attempt to re-argue the case.

On the reconsideration request, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate any violation of natural justice or procedural fairness under Rule 18.2(a).

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant did not identify any significant error of law or fact under Rule 18.2(b), but rather attempted to re-litigate issues regarding pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for income replacement benefits as statute-barred.

The applicant argued the limitation period should be stayed due to his mental incapacity.

The Associate Chair found no error in the Tribunal's conclusion that mental incapacity was not established at the relevant time.

However, the Associate Chair found the Tribunal made a significant error of law by failing to consider its discretion to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999.

Applying the factors for an extension of time, the Associate Chair granted the extension, noting the applicant's declining capacity, the short delay, lack of prejudice to the insurer, and the merits of the claim.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs).

The insurer suspended and later terminated the benefits, arguing the applicant failed to provide requested financial documentation under s. 33 of the Schedule and no longer met the disability test.

The Tribunal found that the applicant breached s. 33 without a reasonable explanation, disentitling her to benefits for the period of non-compliance.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment as a restaurant owner, relying on the insurer's multidisciplinary assessments.

The application and request for costs were dismissed.