Sylvia Guirguis

The applicant sought an interim order for payment of medical and attendant care benefits pending the final hearing of his statutory accident benefits dispute.

The respondent argued the Licence Appeal Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award interim benefits.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, finding that recent amendments to the Insurance Act restricted its jurisdiction to make interim orders to those specifically provided for by regulation.

As no regulation currently permits interim benefits, the Tribunal concluded it has no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief and dismissed the preliminary issue.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Case Conference Order that precluded the use of affidavit evidence in a written hearing concerning attendant care benefits.

The Associate Chair converted the reconsideration request into a motion to vary the order.

Finding that precluding affidavit evidence would bar the applicant from proving her case regarding the type, duration, and necessity of services provided, and noting no prejudice to the respondent who retains the right of cross-examination, the Associate Chair granted the motion to permit affidavit evidence.

The applicant sought payment for a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plan and required an insurer's examination (IE).

The applicant attended the IE but it did not proceed because she wished to record the session.

The insurer refused to pay for the assessment, alleging non-attendance, and brought a preliminary motion to preclude the applicant from proceeding with her Tribunal application.

The Tribunal dismissed the insurer's motion, finding that the insurer's notice of the IE was deficient because it failed to provide sufficient medical and other reasons for the examination as required by the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a case conference order regarding disclosure obligations in an accident benefits dispute.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to include documents the respondent consented to produce and that the order requiring her to produce medical records violated procedural fairness and was based on an error of law.

The Executive Chair varied the order to include the consented disclosure but dismissed the remainder of the request, finding the applicant had sufficient notice that disclosure would be discussed and that the Tribunal did not err in its statement of the test for attendant care benefits.

The appellant, who was catastrophically impaired in a motor vehicle accident, claimed attendant care benefits for services provided by his daughter.

The daughter worked full-time at a youth facility.

The Arbitrator found that the services she provided in her employment were not similar enough to the convalescent care she provided to her father, and therefore the expenses were not 'incurred' under s. 3(7)(e)(iii)(A) of the SABS.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that the Arbitrator's conclusion was a finding of fact not subject to review on appeal.

The insurer brought a motion for the production of clinical notes and records from the applicant's treating psychologist and records from the Children's Aid Society.

The applicant, a minor claiming statutory accident benefits for psychological impairment, opposed the production.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding that the psychologist's records were prima facie relevant to the psychological impairment claim and that the probative value outweighed potential prejudice.

The arbitrator also ordered the production of the Children's Aid Society records, as they were relevant to determining whether concurrent family issues contributed to the applicant's mental distress.

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

The parties disputed the calculation of the applicant's 'gross employment income' under section 4(1) of the new SABS.

The applicant argued that employer-paid Canada Pension Plan (CPP) contributions should be included in the calculation.

The arbitrator held that the definition of 'gross employment income' in the new SABS is clear and restricts remuneration to money paid to and received by the employee.

Employer CPP contributions are paid to the government, not the employee, and therefore should not be included in the calculation of gross employment income.