Z. Jwan Desai

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an incident where a driver struck her with his vehicle door and subsequently exited the vehicle to punch her in the face.

The respondent accepted that the first phase involving the vehicle door constituted an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, but denied benefits for the psychological impairments resulting from the subsequent assault.

The Tribunal found that the incident was severable into two distinct phases.

Applying the Purpose and Causation tests, the Tribunal held that the assault was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation and did not arise out of the ordinary and well-known activities for which automobiles are used.

The applicant's claim for benefits related to the assault was dismissed.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, sought attendant care benefits for services allegedly provided by his wife.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the wife did not meet the requirements for a provider under the Schedule and did not incur an economic loss.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the attendant care services were provided by his wife over and above the professional care already received.

Furthermore, the applicant did not prove that his wife sustained an economic loss as a result of providing the care.

The claims for attendant care benefits, interest, and a special award were dismissed.