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.

March 27, 2020

/

tgp-admin

I.W. v. Coachman Insurance Company (18-010935)

The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision that he was not involved in an accident. Adjudicator Grant rejected the reconsideration, holding that there was no error law regarding the purpose or causation test. The claimant had been the victim of an assault, which was an intervening act and the dominant cause of his injuries.

March 27, 2020

/

tgp-admin

K.Y.C. v. Unica Insurance Inc. (19-000494)

The claimant sought entitlement to a series of catastrophic impairment assessments. The insurer argued that the medical benefits available to the claimant had been exhausted and that the assessments were therefore not payable. Adjudicator Grant disagreed with the insurer and held that the medical benefits limits did not apply to catastrophic impairment assessments because such...

March 27, 2020

/

tgp-admin

I.W. v. Coachman Insurance Company (18-010935)

The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision that he was not involved in an accident. Adjudicator Grant rejected the reconsideration, holding that there was no error law regarding the purpose or causation test. The claimant had been the victim of an assault, which was an intervening act and the dominant cause of his injuries.

March 26, 2020

/

tgp-admin

C.A. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (18-005878)

The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision that she was not entitled to IRBs beyond the 104 week mark. Adjudicator Lake dismissed the reconsideration. The claimant's arguments were primarily an attempt to have the Tribunal re-weigh the evidence and expert opinions in a more favourable light. This did not constitute an error in law.

March 26, 2020

/

tgp-admin

C.A. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (18-005878)

The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision that she was not entitled to IRBs beyond the 104 week mark. Adjudicator Lake dismissed the reconsideration. The claimant's arguments were primarily an attempt to have the Tribunal re-weigh the evidence and expert opinions in a more favourable light. This did not constitute an error in law.

March 25, 2020

/

tgp-admin

F.E. v. Intact Insurance Company (18-011405)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs, various medical benefits, and two assessments. The insurer brought motions for section 33 non-compliance for failure to provide records in the Case Conference Order, and a section 55 defence for IE non-attendance. Both motions were dismissed. Section 33 was not found to apply because the claimant's breach was of...

March 25, 2020

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (18-004952)

The claimant sought a determination that he suffered a catastrophic impairment due to a Class 4 marked impairment. Adjudicator Lake accepted that the claimant sustained a mental or behavioural disorder as a result of the accident, but that he did not suffer a Class 4 marked impairment in any sphere of function (his impairments ranged...

March 25, 2020

/

tgp-admin

Y.K. v. Aviva General Insurance Company (18-003926)

The claimant suffered a brain injury and was deemed catastrophically impaired as a result of a 2011 accident. He received personal care from his brother, who left multiple part-time jobs to care for him. The Form 1 supported $6,000 per month in ACBs, but the claimant's brother suffered an economic loss of $2,100 per month...

March 24, 2020

/

tgp-admin

N.C. v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex (18-003656)

The claimant sought a determination that he suffered a catastrophic impairment due to a Class 4 marked impairment or 55 percent WPI, ACBs, HK expenses, and various medical benefits. The insurer sought repayment of IRBs. Adjudicator Neilson concluded that the claimant did not suffer a catastrophic impairment. She first noted that the claimant would only...

March 20, 2020

/

tgp-admin

M.G. v. Certas Direct Insurance Company (18-006807)

The claimant sought to add a claim for a physiatry assessment to the issues in dispute. The claimant had died one day after the physiatry assessment took place. The insurer argued that the issue should not be added because the claimant failed to attend the IE (after he had died). Vice Chair Marzinotto permitted the...

March 20, 2020

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Company (17-008493)

The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision that his claim for ACBs and HK expenses was barred by the limitation period. Adjudicator Boyce granted the reconsideration request based on the Court of Appeal's decision in Tomec v. Economical. The claimant's ACBs and HK expenses had been denied in 2005. In 2015, the insurer accepted...

March 19, 2020

/

tgp-admin

A.G. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (19-001973)

The claimant sought a special award in relation to the cost for medical cannabis. The insurer had requested information from the claimant regarding the costs for the medical cannabis in order to consider payment. The claimant responded, but only provided some of the information requested by the insurer. Adjudicator Parish noted the insurer should have...

March 19, 2020

/

tgp-admin

M.N.T. v. Certas Direct Insurance Company (19-000031)

The claimant sought non-earner benefits. An Tribunal Order of June 24, 2019, determined that the issues in dispute were NEBs and interest on overdue payments. In the claimant's submissions, she included 2 additional issues: (1) status under the MIG and (2) a medical rehabilitation benefit. The claimant provided physiotherapy records, which included only one page...

March 19, 2020

/

tgp-admin

H.S.H. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (18-002204)

The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's denial of the cost of a catastrophic impairment assessment, arguing that the burden should not be on the claimant and that the "reasonable and necessary" test did not apply to section 25. Adjudicator Reilly dismissed the reconsideration request, holding that the "reasonable and necessary" test applied to each...

March 18, 2020

/

tgp-admin

M.M. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (17-006475)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs, various medical benefits, educational expenses, and an accounting report. Adjudicator Boyce found that the claimant was not entitled to payment of IRBs as claimed as she did not demonstrate a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment for the period in dispute. Adjudicator Boyce had...

March 13, 2020

/

tgp-admin

J.W. v. Security National Insurance Company (18-008988)

The claimant sought entitlement to ACBs. Adjudicator Norris found that the claimant was entitled to attendant care benefits, even though the claimant had returned to an intellectually challenging vocation (litigation lawyer) which required long work days. Since the evidence indicated that the claimant suffered ongoing fatigue as a result of a traumatic brain injury and...

March 13, 2020

/

tgp-admin

A.P. v. Aviva Insurance Canada(18-007997)

The claimant sought entitlement to NEBs, medical benefits proposed in three treatment plans, and the cost of examination expense for an orthopaedic assessment. Adjudicator Grieves concluded that the claimant was not entitled to NEBs as the claimant failed to prove that he suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life. Adjudicator Grieves found...

March 12, 2020

/

tgp-admin

G.N.K. v Aviva Insurance Canada (18-006631)

The claimant initially applied for and elected IRBs, but ultimately did not meet the criteria to receive IRBs. He sought to re-elect and receive NEBs. The insurer argued that he was not entitled to make a re-election. Adjudicator Marzinotto agreed with the insurer, and held that the claimant could only re-elect to receive NEBs if...

March 12, 2020

/

tgp-admin

Najeebdeen v. Economical Mutual Insurance (19-010850)

The claimant sought the particulars of, and production of, all surveillance the insurer had conducted. The insurer resisted the request, arguing that all surveillance was obtained after litigation privilege arose. Adjudicator Grieves held that the insurer was only required to produce surveillance obtained after litigation privilege arose if the insurer intended on using the surveillance...

March 11, 2020

/

tgp-admin

T.N. v. TD Insurance Company (19-005638)

The claimant sought entitlement to ACBs in excess of the total approved by the insurer. The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter because the claimant had not actually incurrent any attendant care expenses. Adjudicator Lester found that there was a dispute between the parties since...

March 10, 2020

/

tgp-admin

Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. A.S. (19-001820)

The insurer applied to the LAT for repayment of IRBs, and also for a determination on the claimant's entitlement to further IRBs, the application of a section 33 suspension, and whether the claimant sustained a catastrophic impairment. Adjudicator Boyce held that the insurer could not bring an application related to IRB entitlement, section 33 suspension,...

Contact Us

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

416.507.1850

eodonnell@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

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com

© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP