Tanzeela Ansari

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied catastrophic impairment and various benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness by shortening the scheduled 12-day hearing to six days, which prevented one of their witnesses from testifying due to a scheduling conflict.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding that the Tribunal failed to exercise its discretion in a procedurally fair manner and did not consider alternative options to accommodate the witness.

The reconsideration was granted and the original decision was cancelled.

The plaintiff, Maria Prete, brought a motion for leave to add three new defendants and to amend her statement of claim in a slip-and-fall action.

The court found that the motion to add Avison Young (Canada) Inc. as a defendant was brought outside the applicable limitation period and must be dismissed.

The motion was granted as against the other two proposed defendants, Bay International Inc. and Long & Morris Property Management Ltd., who did not oppose the motion, but without prejudice to their right to plead a limitation defence.

Costs were awarded to Avison Young.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found they were statute-barred from claiming income replacement benefits and had not suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant argued the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness and erred in law and fact by neglecting their health status and pre-accident trauma, and by improperly weighing evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness and no error of law or fact, noting that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold required for reconsideration.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment based on mental and behavioural impairments.

The adjudicator first determined that the applicant was statute-barred from claiming income replacement benefits because they failed to submit a Disability Certificate (OCF-3) within 104 weeks of the accident.

On the issue of catastrophic impairment, the adjudicator preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychiatric expert, finding that the applicant's functional impairments were related to a well-documented, long-standing psychiatric history rather than the subject accident.

The adjudicator also dismissed the applicant's claims for unapproved portions of psychological and chiropractic treatment plans, as well as a catastrophic assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment and was entitled to post-104 income replacement benefits, attendant care, and various medical benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's key expert psychiatrist, who recanted his findings during cross-examination when confronted with evidence of the applicant's actual functional capabilities, including international travel and childcare.

Consequently, the applicant failed to prove she met the criteria for catastrophic impairment or that she suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

As the non-catastrophic benefit limits were exhausted, all claims were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment and denied his claims for various benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its assessment of the medical evidence and application of the law regarding treatment plans.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate his case and failed to establish any error of fact or law under Rule 18.2(b) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an accident involving an all-terrain vehicle.

The insurer denied benefits, including income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant was excluded from receiving income replacement benefits because he was operating an uninsured vehicle without a valid license.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for catastrophic impairment and other benefits, finding the applicant's self-reporting to medical assessors was unreliable and contradicted by video surveillance showing a higher level of functioning than reported.

The defendants, Suhaib Alekozai and Behzad Dalf-Ajresh, sought costs following a ten-day jury trial where they were entirely successful on the issues of causation and damages.

The plaintiff, Rhonda Anderson, did not make costs submissions.

The defendants requested costs on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $72,655.65.

The court, applying section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found the requested legal fees fair and reasonable given the trial's complexity and the plaintiff's initial claims versus the jury's zero damages award.

However, the court disallowed certain disbursements for lack of explanation or proportionality, ultimately awarding the defendants costs totaling $68,137.68.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for statutory accident benefits.

The original decision found that the applicant failed to establish his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and therefore did not consider the reasonableness and necessity of the disputed treatment plans.

On reconsideration, the applicant argued this failure constituted an error of law or fact.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that because the applicant did not meet his initial burden to remove himself from the MIG, there was no available funding and thus no need to assess the treatment plans.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits beyond the $3,500 limit of the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent insurer denied the claims, arguing the injuries were minor.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence demonstrating that her injuries fell outside the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant was subject to the MIG funding limit, and her claims for additional medical benefits, interest, and an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued that pre-existing high blood pressure, psychological injuries, and a concussion warranted removal from the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no medical evidence that the pre-existing condition would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

Furthermore, the Tribunal rejected the psychological and concussion claims due to a lack of compelling medical evidence.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the $3,500 funding limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans, award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit and a treatment plan for massage and physiotherapy.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he failed to provide sufficient information to support his IRB claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof to warrant removal from the MIG, failed to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, and failed to demonstrate a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment for the IRB.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for medical treatment, assessments, and other expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's proposed physiotherapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to address his chronic pain, preferring the evidence of his chronic pain specialist over the insurer's assessor.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for additional psychological services, an orthopedic assessment, a duplicate chronic pain assessment, an accounting report, and prescription expenses, finding the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden for those items.