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 applied to Certas for accident benefits. Certas brought an application to the LAT arguing that the claimant was not involved in an "accident" and sought repayment of accident benefits because the claimant wilfully misrepresented facts in relation to her application for benefits. Adjudicator Maleki-Yazdi agreed that the claimant was not involved in an...
A preliminary issues hearing was held to determine whether the claimant was involved in an "accident" as defined in s. 3(1) of the SABS. The claimant and insurer agreed on the following facts: On the day of the accident, the claimant drove to a feed store with her husband to purchase horse feed. The claimant...
The claimant disputed her MIG determination and her entitlement to medical benefits. In regard to the MIG, Adjudicator Moten found the claimant's prior injury to her coccygeal region prevented maximal recovery if she were limited to the $3,500 minor injury limits. Adjudicator Moten also found there was compelling evidence in the claimant's health practitioners' medical...
The claimant sought entitlement to NEBs and medical benefits; the insurer required the claimant to attend s. 44 insurer's examinations. The claimant did not attend the IEs and submitted an application to the LAT. The insurer requested a preliminary issue hearing and Adjudicator Farlam found that the claimant was barred from proceeding with her application...
The claimant was involved in a accident on October 21, 2017, and was paid an IRB for one year. The insurer terminated the claimant's IRB on the basis that they did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the tasks of their pre-accident employment. The claimant filed a LAT Application disputing IRBs up to the...
Aviva brought an application arguing that the claimant was not involved in an accident and sought repayment of IRBs in the amount of $22,647.59. Aviva relied on surveillance showing the claimant attending his place of employment on several occasions as well as review of the police report from the January 11, 2019 accident that showed...
Aviva brought an application seeking repayment of IRBs because the claimant wilfully misrepresented facts in relation to her return to work and receipt of maternity benefits while she received IRBs. Adjudicator Boyce found that Aviva was entitled to repayment in the amount of $14,568.36 due to overpayment of IRBs. Adjudicator Boyce agreed with Aviva that...
The preliminary issue in this matter was whether the claimant was statute barred from disputing the attendant care benefit and treatment plans for physiotherapy due to the expiry of the limitation period in s. 56 of the Schedule. Adjudicator Johal concluded that the claimant was entitled to dispute these denials at the Tribunal. Adjudicator Johal...
The claimant was deemed catastrophically impaired on the basis of his Glasgow Coma Scale. Issues arose between the parties concerning the claimant’s entitlement to rehabilitation benefits under the Schedule. The insurer denied payment and the claimant appealed to the LAT for payment of these benefits. Adjudicator Kowal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to...
The insurer sought reconsideration of a decision in which the Tribunal found that the claimant had sustained a catastrophic impairment based on Criteria 7. The Tribunal concluded that the claimant had sustained 54% WPI. After rounding up, as permitted by the Guides, the claimant met the threshold of 55%. The insurer submitted that the Tribunal...
The insurer denied the claimant's claim for NEBs on the basis that he did not suffer from a complete inability to carry on a normal life. The claimant disagreed and applied to the Tribunal for dispute resolution. Adjudicator Paluch concluded that the claimant was not entitled to receive NEBs applying the principles outlined in Heath...
The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision granting a special award of 35% on IRBs. The insurer argued that the Tribunal erred in finding that the insurer received the claimant's employment file in August of 2018, his CPP file by March 12, 2018, and his tax returns by August 2018. The insurer argued that...
The claimant appealed and sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision that her claims were barred by the limitation period. The Court dismissed both the appeal and the judicial review. The Court explained that statutory appeals are limited to strict questions of law, and the claimant had failed to identify an error of law on...
This motion decision arose in the context of a LAT hearing relating to a catastrophic impairment determination. On the third day of the hearing during direct examination of one of the claimant's expert witnesses, counsel for the insurer objected on the ground that the expert's testimony was beyond the scope of her written report. The...
The claimant was declared catastrophically impaired and sought payment of attendant care benefits and housekeeping benefits provided by her daughters. The insurer ultimately accepted that the claimant was entitled to payment of the benefits, and argued that since it agreed with the claim, there was no basis upon which a special award could be granted....
The claimant sought reconsideration of the decision of Adjudicator Maleki-Yazdi wherein she found that the claimant was not in an accident. Adjudicator Maleki-Yazdi upheld her previous decision. Adjudicator Maleki-Yazdi noted that the Tribunal reviewed all of the evidence, including the expert reports about whether the accident was staged, and that she did not err in...
The claimant disputed the insurer's decision to keep her in the MIG, as well as her entitlement to various medical benefits. The insurer argued that the claimant had failed to comply with its section 33 requests for medical records, and as such, was not liable to pay any benefit. Adjudicator Grant agreed, noting that the...
The claimant disputed the insurer's decision to keep him in the MIG, as well as his entitlement to various treatment plans. Prior to the filing of hearing submissions, the insurer removed the claimant from the MIG and approved all of the disputed treatment plans. As a result, the only issue in dispute in the hearing...
The claimant disputed entitlement to the MIG, NEBs, and various medical benefits. The claimant argued that they were entitled to payment of NEBs due to Economical's failure to comply with the timeline under section 36(4). The insurer argued that the claimant was barred from litigating NEBs for failure to attend a scheduled IE to address...
The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Alberta while driving a vehicle registered in Alberta and insured under an Alberta policy. She applied for and received benefits in Alberta under Alberta protocols. She then moved to Ontario and applied for benefits pursuant to the SABS. The claimant argued that she could elect...
The insurer sought reconsideration of a decision in which the Tribunal ordered it to pay the cost of an in-home occupational therapy assessment and a special award of 40%. Vice Chair McGee denied the insurer's request, finding that it had not established any of the grounds for reconsideration. She noted that the Tribunal's assessment of...