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 filed a motion seeking to add punitive damages as an additional issue in dispute to the LAT application. The insurer argued that the Tribunal had determined on numerous occasions that it did not have the power to order punitive damages. After considering the legislation, Adjudicator Mazerolle agreed with the insurer that it was...
The claimant was the driver of an all-terrain vehicle which collided with a dirt bike on private property. Neither vehicle was insured and the claimant suffered a severe brain injury as a result of the collision. The issue in dispute is whether either vehicle would be defined as an automobile pursuant to the Insurance Act....
The self-employed claimant applied to the LAT seeking entitlement to medical benefits outside of the MIG and a determination of the quantum of IRBs. The insurer had paid IRBs in the amount of $59 per week, based on its expert accounting report. The claimant sought IRBs in the amount of $400 per week, based on...
The insurer appealed the Tribunal's preliminary order excluding surveillance at an upcoming hearing. Justice Corbett dismissed the appeal, holding that it was premature and an abuse of process. If the insurer is ultimately unsuccessful at the hearing and if it decides to appeal, it will be open to the insurer to raise the issue of...
The claimant failed to attend four separate IEs arranged by the insurer to address post-104 IRBs. The insurer filed a Notice of Motion requesting that the claimant's application be dismissed. The insurer argued that insufficient medical evidence had been provided by the claimant, and an independent medical opinion was needed in order to properly address...
The claimant brought a motion to: (1) compel the insurer to provide particulars clarifying a statement made by a claims representative in an email regarding a job site analysis; and (2) excluding the claims representative from representing the insurer before the Tribunal. Vice Chair Maedel dismissed both motions. Whether the claims representative stated something different...
The claimant appealed the Tribunal's decision that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment due to a GCS score less than 9. The primary grounds for appeal were the Tribunal's refusal to admit video evidence of the accident and treatment by EMS, and the Tribunal's decision to allow an IE expert to comment on matters...
The insurer filed a request for reconsideration following a decision in which the Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to various medical benefits and a special award. Adjudicator Grant granted the insurer's request for reconsideration in part, and the order for a special award was set aside. Adjudicator Grant was persuaded by the insurer's...
There were two preliminary issues raised during this hearing. First, the insurer sought to bar the claimant from proceeding to a hearing on an IRB denial due to their failure to attend an EUO. The claimant had attended an EUO, but was not able to complete it due to a “terrible headache”. The EUO was...
The insurer sought to have this claimant's application dismissed or stayed due to the claimant's failure to attend an IE relating to the MIG and a treatment plan. The insurer had not performed an IE of the claimant in the four years that the claim had been active, and had been prejudiced by being unable...
The Tribunal was asked to determine whether the claimant's injuries were within the Minor Injury Guideline, but no benefits were disputed. Prior to the case conference, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss the claim without a hearing on the basis that the subject matter of the application fell outside of the Tribunals jurisdiction. The...
The claimant appealed the Tribunal's decision that she did not suffer a catastrophic impairment under the Spinal Cord Independence Measure III ("SCIM"), also known as Criteria 2(iii). The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding that Adjudicator Boyce was correct in law to dismiss the catastrophic impairment application because the claimant did not suffer a permanent...
The claimant was involved in an accident and sustained various minor injuries. Approximately five months post-accident, the claimant's immediate family members flew from the United Kingdom to visit. The cost of the return flight was GBP £2,650. The claimant submitted the expense to the insurer as an accident-related visitors expense, which was denied. The claimant...
The preliminary issue in this matter is whether the claimant was barred from commencing a proceeding for certain medical benefits because she failed to comply with s. 44 of the Schedule by not attending an insurer's examination. The claimant submitted an OCF-6 for cannabis prescription expenses and the insurer denied the expense pending a s....
The claimant applied to the LAT disputing entitlement to IRBs. The insurer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the claimant was barred by the two-year limitation period. The claimant applied to the LAT on November 1, 2019 after 5:00 pm. The insurer denied IRBs on November 2, 2017. The insurer argued that the claimant's LAT...
The insurer sought repayment of IRBs in the amount of $12,731.87 for the period from July 10, 2017 to April 26, 2019 plus interest and costs. At the time of the accident, the claimant was employed at a shoe store and at a jewellery store. The insurer spoke with the jewellery store on September 26,...
The claimant sought entitlement to an OCF-18 seeking funding for CAT assessments, including a neurology assessment, physiatry assessment, psychology assessment, and two occupational therapy assessments. The insurer denied the CAT assessments on the basis that the claimant sustained soft tissue injuries in the accident and argued that the claimant's complaints were not accident-related (but rather...
The claimant was walking to her vehicle when she slipped and fell on ice. The fall happened as she was turning towards the driver's side door and had activated the key fob to unlock the vehicle. The Tribunal accepted that the claimant had satisfied the purpose test, as the accident arose from the ordinary and...
The preliminary issue in this matter was whether the insurer's denials of the disputed treatment plans complied with s. 38(8) of the Schedule. Adjudicator Kaur found that the insurer's denials of the disputed treatment plans did not comply with s. 38(8) because they did not reference the claimant's injuries or the medical documentation that was...
The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2015. As a result of the accident, she sustained multiple injuries, including a head injury with a GCS score of 5/15. The insurer determined the claimant had a catastrophic impairment as defined in the SABS. The claimant returned to work on a part-time basis in...
The claimant was in an accident in September 2015. He was paid IRBs until December 2015. In a December 30, 2015 EOB letter, the insurer notified the claimant that: “Your Income Replacement Benefit has been stopped on December 2, 2015, as you returned to work full-time on December 2, 2015. No further Income Replace Benefit...