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 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...
The claimant applied to the LAT seeking entitlement to incurred ACBs, occupational therapy, and a special award. The insurer raised two preliminary issues: 1) Did the LAT have jurisdiction to adjudicate the ACB issue as the benefit had been suspended for non-compliance with s. 33 requests rather than denied; and 2) Was the claimant barred...
The claimant applied to the LAT to dispute several treatment plans. At the case conference, the insurer raised two preliminary issues: (1) whether the claimant was statute barred from pursuing his claim for medical benefits due to the two year limitation; and (2) if not, whether the claimant was precluded from proceeding with his claim...
The insurer requested reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision awarding post-104 IRBs entitlement and interest. The insurer submitted that the Tribunal erred when it relied on the trial decision in Burtch v. Aviva that post-accident employment that is substantially different in nature, status, and renumeration may not be considered an appropriate alternative. The insurer noted that...
The claimant sought reconsideration of a decision in which she was statute barred from disputing her claim for NEBs. The claimant argued that the original decision erred in law because: (1) it found that a capacity assessment should take place or be investigated within the appeal limitation period; (2) it found the total delay was...
The claimant was involved in a motorcycle accident in 2013. In 2015 she signed a Settlement Disclosure Notice and Full and Final Release settling her claim for accident benefits. The claimant did not have legal representation when she signed the settlement documents. In 2017 the claimant submitted to the insurer an OCF-19 application for determination...
The insurer filed a request for reconsideration in relation to the previous ruling, which determined that s.25 CAT assessments are excluded from the $50,000.00 medical benefits limit. The insurer argued that Tribunal erred in law or fact and requested that the previous decision be set aside. The insurer argued that the Tribunal had erred in...
The insurer sought reconsideration of a decision in which the Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to NEBs and a special award of 40%. Adjudicator Grieves dismissed the insurer's request, on the basis that the Tribunal did not make any error of law or fact in rendering its decision. In doing so, she noted...
The claimant sought entitlement to benefits and the parties attended a case conference where the insurer raised the preliminary issue of whether the claimant was statute barred from proceeding with her claim for an IRB pursuant to section 56 of the Schedule. Adjudicator Chakravarti determined that the claimant was statute barred and her appeal was...
The claimant sought entitlement to benefits and the parties attended a case conference where the insurer raised the preliminary issue of whether the claimant was statute barred from proceeding with her claim pursuant to section 56 of the Schedule. Adjudicator Chakravarti found that pursuant to section 56 of the Schedule, the claimant was statute barred...