Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP is pleased to provide this online resource to our clients. Below is a searchable database of the publicly released decisions from the Licence Appeal Tribunal. Assembled by the accident benefits group, the decisions are reviewed, briefly summarized, and categorized for easy access.
As of March 2020, we will not include any further decisions focused solely on the Minor Injury Guideline or treatment plans, unless the case may have broader applicability.
The claimant sought further IRBs and medical benefits out of the MIG. Vice Chair Flude held that the claimant did not suffer from a pre-existing condition, was not suffering chronic pain syndrome, and could perform the essential tasks of her employment. IRBs were denied and the claimant was restricted to MIG level benefits.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG, and entitlement to a treatment plan for physical therapy. Adjudicator Theoharis concluded that the claimant had sustained a "minor injury" and did not suffer a pre-existing condition that would prevent him from being treated under the $3,500 limit. The claimed treatment plan was denied.
The claimant failed to attend an IE due to the notice letter being lost between his wife and parents' mail. Adjudicator Marzinotto found NEBs payable for the period the claimant was held in non-compliance because he was credible. Although it would have been reasonable for the claimant to provide an updated address, his failure to...
This decision addressed whether the LAT had jurisdiction to award costs after all accident benefits in dispute were resolved. Adjudicators Treksler and Richards concluded that the LAT did retain jurisdiction to award costs after the parties had resolved the accident benefits in dispute.
The accident occurred while the claimant was operating a motor vehicle with an expired licence. The insurer brought a motion that the claim for IRBs must be dismissed due to the exclusion at section 31. The claimant argued that he was not aware of his licencing having expired. Vice Chair Flude agreed with the insurer...
The claimant sought a waiver of the $100 LAT filing fee in accordance with the Administration of Justice Act. The LAT held that the Administration of Justice Act did not apply to Tribunals, and, even if it did, the claimant had not provided a sufficient factual basis for granting a fee waiver.
The insurer's denial of NEBs was dated April 8, 2014. The claimant applied to the LAT on April 8, 2016 to dispute his entitlement to NEBs. The insurer argued that the limitation period expired on April 7, 2016, because the date of denial had to be included in counting the two-year period. Vice Chair Flude...