LAT Case Law Summaries

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.

Search

Generic filters

August 10, 2018

/

tgp-admin

S.S. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company (17-002867)

The claimant sought entitlement to attendant care benefits and housekeeping expenses after a catastrophic impairment application. The insurer argued that those benefits had been denied more than two years prior, and were therefore statute barred. Adjudicator Johal agreed with the insurer. He held that the denials of HK expenses and ACBs were clear and unequivocal...

August 9, 2018

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v. Liberty Insurance (17-006380)

The claimant was struck on the head by an unidentified cyclist travelling on the sidewalk while she was taking something out of her work vehicle. She sought accident benefits. The insurer argued that the facts of loss did not qualify as an accident. Adjudicator Hans concluded that the incident was an accident for the purposes...

August 7, 2018

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v. Allstate Canada (17-005189)

The claimant sought entitlement to two treatment plans for physical and psychological treatment. Adjudicator Grieves denied the claims. She held that the claimant's physical complaints were not supported by prescriptions or referrals to specialists, and no objective evidence of injury was submitted. Similarly, the adjudicator denied entitlement to the psychological treatment based on the insurer's...

August 3, 2018

/

tgp-admin

O.G. v. RSA Insurance (17-007972)

The claimant sought entitlement to seven medical benefits. Adjudicator Ferguson held that the claimant failed to provide evidence that the disputed treatment plans would provide pain relief or the goals and efficacy of the treatment.

August 1, 2018

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v. Aviva General Insurance (17-007215)

The claimant sought entitlement to over $20,000 for multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessments. The insurer argued that the claimant had exhausted her medical benefits limits, that the proposed assessments were not reasonable and necessary, and that the assessment costs were in excess of the $2,000 limit. Adjudicator Grant held that the medical benefits limits did not...

August 1, 2018

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v. The Guarantee Company of North America (17-003860)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs and three treatment plans. Adjudicator Anwar awarded IRBs but denied the treatment plans. He concluded that the claimant's injuries prevented him from working as a drywaller and steel framer. The medical benefits were denied because the claimant failed to provide the disputed treatment plans as evidence and the Tribunal...

August 1, 2018

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v. Aviva General Insurance Company (17-007475)

The claimant sought entitlement to a psychological assessment. Adjudicator Punyarthi denied the claim. He held that the claimant failed to explain why the proposed assessment was necessary and that the fees were reasonable. He was also critical of the contents of the Pilowsky report because the diagnoses did not correspond to the evidence that was...

August 1, 2018

/

tgp-admin

J.B. v. The Guarantee Company of North America (17-003860)

The claimant sought entitlement to ongoing IRBs, and various medical benefits. Adjudicator Anwar found the claimant to be credible, and concluded that he was unable to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment in home construction. IRBs were awarded up to the date of the 104 week anniversary, with IRBs beyond that date to...

July 30, 2018

/

tgp-admin

K.H. v Unifund Assurance Company (17-008686)

The claimant appealed Unifund's MIG determination due to a pre-existing condition and sought medical benefits for physiotherapy. Adjudicator Ferguson held that the claimant's pre-existing scoliosis of the upper thoracic spine did not remove her from the MIG because her condition was undetected before the accident, and the claimant provided no evidence that her condition would...

July 30, 2018

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v Aviva Canada Inc. (17-007626)

The claimant sought medical benefits for assistive devices, chiropractic treatment, and a functionality assessment, as well as a special award. Adjudicator Boyce held that the claimant was entitled to the medical benefits sought, but not a special award. The adjudicator held that the assistive devices sought were reasonable and necessary as Aviva removed the claimant...

July 30, 2018

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v. Aviva Insurance Canada (17-007825)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and payment of various medical benefits. Adjudicator Ferguson concluded that the claimant did not suffer chronic pain, and was therefore restricted to MIG-level benefits. The insurer, and the claimant accepted, that the Tribunal should refer to the AMA Guides in determining whether the claimant suffered chronic pain syndrome....

July 27, 2018

/

tgp-admin

T.S. v. Aviva General Insurance Canada (17-000835)

The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision that his injuries fell under the MIG. The Tribunal had concluded that the claimant suffered chronic pain, but that it was "clinically associated sequelae" of the initial "minor injury." Executive Chair Lamoureux reversed the Tribunal's decision. She held that the Tribunal's finding that the claimant suffered from...

July 26, 2018

/

tgp-admin

K.J. v Aviva General Insurance (17-006391)

The applicant sought various medical benefits and assessments and argued that his injuries fell outside the MIG. Adjudicator Hamud held that the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG, and the applicant failed to establish that he could not achieve maximal recovery from within the MIG. The applicant sustained sprain and strains of the spine, shoulder,...

July 24, 2018

/

tgp-admin

S.C. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (18-003409)

The claimant filed a Notice of Motion requesting the Tribunal make the following orders: 1) that the insurer could not use any surveillance of the claimant at the hearing or, in the alternative, that the investigator must attend the hearing for cross-examination; 2) that the respondent pay for a s. 25 report or, in the...

July 24, 2018

/

tgp-admin

C.S. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (17-008727)

The claimant sought entitlement to various medical benefits and cost of assessments. Adjudicator Ferguson denied the benefits incurred before the submission of a treatment plan and denied the treatment plan for nutritional counselling. He awarded the cost of approved assistive devices, but ordered that the claimant had to incur the cost of the devices before...

July 24, 2018

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v Aviva Insurance Canada (17-003450)

The applicant sought the costs of a chronic pain assessment. Based on an IE physiatry paper review, Aviva argued that continuing with psychological treatment alone would suffice. Adjudicator Diplas held that the cost of examination for a chronic pain assessment was reasonable and necessary. The adjudicator relied on clinical notes and records from the applicant's...

July 24, 2018

/

tgp-admin

E.E. v. Aviva Insurance Company (16-004281)

The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision that the claimant had sustained a catastrophic impairment and was entitled to attendant care benefits. Associate Chair Jovanovic denied the request for reconsideration. He held that the adjudicator did not err in preferring the evidence and opinions of the claimant's experts and treating physicians, and that it...

July 24, 2018

/

tgp-admin

E.E. v. Aviva Insurance Company (16-004281)

The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision that the claimant had sustained a catastrophic impairment and was entitled to attendant care benefits. Associate Chair Jovanovic denied the request for reconsideration. He held that the adjudicator did not err in preferring the evidence and opinions of the claimant's experts and treating physicians, and that it...

July 23, 2018

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v. Aviva Insurance Canada (17-006252)

The claimant sought entitlement to NEBs, physical therapy, and various assistive devices. Adjudicator Kershaw awarded NEBs and the assistive devices but denied further physical therapy. NEBs were awarded because the claimant had gone from an independent retiree to one dependent on others to assist with activities of daily living. She no longer drove and was...

July 23, 2018

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v. RBC General Insurance Company (17-006369)

The claimant sought entitlement to four treatment plans for physical therapy. As a preliminary issue, the claimant sought to exclude the IE reports because the IE assessor did not file the LAT Acknowledgement of Expert Duties and because no section 44 notice was sent to the claimant regarding an addendum report. Adjudicator Helt permitted the...

July 23, 2018

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v Aviva Insurance Canada (17-003989)

The claimant sought medical benefits for an orthopaedic assessment and interest on the overdue payment of benefits. Adjudicator Watt held that the claimant was not entitled to the cost of the orthopaedic assessment. The claimant had a pre-accident history of fibromyalgia, anxiety disorder, lower back pain, right knee osteoarthritis, and was considered substantially disabled. Adjudicator...

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1850

smilne@tgplawyers.com

© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles

Powered by Crow & Pitcher

Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox

Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1850

smilne@tgplawyers.com

© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP