Syed M. Raza

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment in an occupiers' liability claim arising from the plaintiff's fall at their shopping plaza.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding whether the defendants breached their duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

Expert evidence indicated the curb was ordinary, in good repair, clearly visible, and complied with applicable standards.

The court concluded that the curb did not pose an unreasonable risk and that the defendants had discharged their duty.

Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were minor and subject to the MIG funding limit, preferring the evidence of the respondent's assessors over the applicant's assessor, whose opinion relied heavily on self-reporting without objective validation.

The disputed treatment plans, special award, and costs were denied due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological and physiotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence for psychological services unreliable due to unexplained contradictions in his self-reporting between his own expert and the insurer's examiner.

The claim for physiotherapy services was dismissed because the applicant failed to submit the disputed treatment plan.

The applicant's request for costs was also denied as it lacked supporting evidence or argument.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $2,000 for psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the applicant's self-reporting to her own experts was inconsistent with her statements during the insurer's examination.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's expert, who concluded that the applicant did not suffer from a psychological impairment requiring formal services.

The applicant's request for costs was also denied as it was unsupported by evidence or argument.