2 total
Appeal dismissed; a public transit bus does not 'collide' with its own passengers under s. 268(1.1).
The appellant was injured when the public transit bus she was riding stopped abruptly, throwing her forward.
She sought statutory accident benefits, which were denied by the Licence Appeal Tribunal under s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act because the bus did not collide with another vehicle or object.
On appeal, the appellant argued she constituted 'any other object' under the statute.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plain wording and context of the provision require the object to be outside the vehicle, and a bus does not collide with a person inside it.
Reconsideration of catastrophic impairment decision dismissed as adjudicator made no errors regarding expert evidence admissibility.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his claims for catastrophic impairment, attendant care benefits, and medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The applicant argued the adjudicator erred by allowing the respondent's psychiatric expert to testify outside the scope of her report, by limiting the evidence of the applicant's chiropractor regarding psychological impairments, and by failing to properly consider the meaning of 'useful function'.
The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no errors of law or fact.
The adjudicator held that the respondent's expert evidence was latent in her report, the chiropractor was not qualified to opine on psychological impairments, and the applicant was improperly attempting to relitigate findings of fact.
