Skip to the content
  • Areas of Practice
  • Mediation
  • Our Lawyers
  • News
  • Case Summaries
    • LAT Law Cases
    • Commercial/Tort Law Cases
  • Areas of Practice
  • Mediation
  • Our Lawyers
  • News
  • Case Summaries
    • LAT Law Cases
    • Commercial/Tort Law Cases

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.

January 17, 2020
/
tgp-admin

R.S. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (18-001324)

The claimant sought a determination that her impairments were outside of the MIG and entitlement to medical benefits proposed in seven chiropractic, attendant care, and psychological treatment plans and assessments. The claimant also argued the MIG limit did not apply to the psychological-based treatment plans, citing the insurer's failure to state in its denial letters...
Read More
January 16, 2020
/
tgp-admin

G.N. v. The Guarantee Company of North America (18-007546)

The claimant sought entitlement to the cost of a capacity assessment and the cost of a court application for guardianship. Adjudicator Ferguson dismissed both claims. He held that the capacity assessment was not payable because it was not incurred within five days of the accident, so the exception at 38(2) did not apply. He also...
Read More
January 14, 2020
/
tgp-admin

S.R. v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company (18-006442)

The claimant was deemed catastrophically impaired. He sought entitlement to ongoing HK expenses, and entitlement to the rent differential for a larger rental home. Adjudicator Paluch rejected both claims. While he held that the claimant suffered a substantial inability to perform housekeeping tasks, he also found that the claimant had not incurred expenses related to...
Read More
January 14, 2020
/
tgp-admin

A.K. v. Allstate Insurance (17-008646)

The claimant sought a determination that she suffered a catastrophic impairment. Adjudicator Gosio concluded that the claimant suffered a catastrophic impairment as a result of a Class 4 marked impairment in adaptation. The claimant suffered psychological injuries as a result of the accident, including pain disorder, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder with features of...
Read More
January 14, 2020
/
tgp-admin

J.H. v. CUMIS General Insurance Company (18-012367)

The claimant sought a determination that she suffered a catastrophic impairment, entitlement to IRBs, and entitlement to various medical benefits. Adjudicator Gosio held that the claimant did not meet the criteria to suffer a catastrophic impairment. He agreed that the claimant suffered a psychological impairment, but that the maximum impairment was a Class 3 moderate...
Read More
January 14, 2020
/
tgp-admin

K.A. v. Unica Insurance (18-011192)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs. The insurer argued that the claimant did not meet any of the criteria for initial entitlement to IRBs. Adjudicator Punyarthi agreed with the insurer, holding that the documentary evidence showed that the claimant was not employed at the time of the accident, was not receiving employment insurance at the...
Read More
January 13, 2020
/
tgp-admin

J.S. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (18-008643)

The claimant sought entitlement to an orthopedic assessment, a chiropractic treatment plan, interest on the payment of overdue benefits, and a special award. Adjudicator Norris found that the disputed orthopaedic assessment plan was not reasonable and necessary; it was a duplication of services as the claimant was previously assessed by an orthopaedic fewer than two...
Read More
January 13, 2020
/
tgp-admin

A.S. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (18-010483)

The claimant sought entitlement to medical benefits proposed in two treatment plants. The insurer raised a preliminary issue on the claimant's late production of evidence. Adjudicator Johal admitted the late disclosure, finding the respondent did not suffer any resulting prejudice. Nevertheless, the claimant was found not entitled to any medical benefits as the treatment plans...
Read More
January 13, 2020
/
tgp-admin

T.A.K. v. Aviva General Insurance Company (18-008232)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs, ACBs, and a special award. The claim for IRBs only concerned the weekly quantum. Adjudicator Neilson held that the insurer was entitled to deduct CPP Disability Benefits, and entitled to deduct income reported on the claimant's tax returns which the claimant could not provide documentation for. She was critical...
Read More
January 10, 2020
/
tgp-admin

L.D. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (19-000674)

The claimant sought entitlement to an orthopedic assessment and interest on the payment of overdue benefits. Adjudicator Boyce found that the disputed orthopedic assessment was reasonable and necessary at the time it was requested because the claimant continued to experience pain post-accident and treatment had plateaued. On this basis, Adjudicator Boyce found it reasonable that...
Read More
January 10, 2020
/
tgp-admin

S.M. v. Aviva General Insurance Company (18-010116)

The claimant sought entitlement to the cost of an accounting report related to IRBs. Adjudicator Boyce dismissed the dispute. He held that it was not reasonable and necessary for the claimant to procure an accounting report. The claimant had a single source of income, and was not self-employed. The existence of short-term disability payments did...
Read More
January 9, 2020
/
tgp-admin

D.O. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (18-007687)

The claimant sought entitlement to various chiropractic treatment plans, a functional cognitive assessment, and interest on the payment of overdue benefits. Adjudicator Norris found the following: since the claimant incurred the disputed chiropractic treatment plans prior to their submission and without prior approval of the insurer or meeting any of the other exceptions under section...
Read More
January 9, 2020
/
tgp-admin

A.G. v. Coseco Insurance (18-007969)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG, entitlement to a chronic pain assessment and chronic pain program, and interest on the payment of overdue benefits. Adjudicator Sharda found that the claimant should be removed from the MIG since the chronic pain she suffered in her neck and left shoulder were not predominantly minor injuries. Adjudicator...
Read More
January 9, 2020
/
tgp-admin

J.P. v. Allstate Insurance Company (18-008027)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs and eight medical benefits. Adjudicator Boyce rejected the claims. He held that the claimant failed to adduce sufficient objective evidence of a substantial inability to engage in his pre-accident employment. All of his evidence was self-reported. Further, the claimant did not use any prescriptions to address his soft tissue...
Read More
January 9, 2020
/
tgp-admin

S.S.R. v. Unifund Assurance Company (18-004772)

The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's award of NEBs and medical benefits, and that section 55 did not prevent the claimant from disputing entitlement to the medical benefits. Vice Chair Lester granted the reconsideration in relation to NEBs, but only in ordering that NEB entitlement began six months after the accident as opposed to...
Read More
January 8, 2020
/
tgp-admin

M.A. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (18-006614)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG, entitlement to various medical/rehabilitation benefits (which were denied due to the insurer's position that the MIG applied to the claimant's injuries), and interest on the payment of overdue benefits. Adjudicator Kaur found that the claimant's pre-existing conditions did not remove him from the MIG and that he sustained...
Read More
January 8, 2020
/
tgp-admin

Z.K. v. Unifund Assurance Company (18-007924)

The claimant sought entitlement to four physiotherapy treatment plans and the cost of an impairment assessment, a multi-disciplinary catastrophic assessment, and a neurological assessment. Adjudicator Manigat rejected the opinion of the insurer's psychiatry assessor that there was no objective evidence of ongoing impairments and that the claimant did not have any functional limitations or physical...
Read More
January 7, 2020
/
tgp-admin

H.W.G. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (Travelers) (18-000126)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to a psychological assessment, chiropractic treatment, and interest on the payment of overdue benefits. Adjudicator Corapi found that the claimant established on a balance of probabilities that her injuries were not predominantly minor injuries because of her psychological injuries; the claimant's depression and anxiety did not...
Read More
January 7, 2020
/
tgp-admin

S.M. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (18-008474)

The claimant suffered a catastrophic impairment in a 2000 accident due to a GCS of 4. He sought entitlement to ACBs of over $5,000 per month, and sought retro-active ACBs back to 2015. Adjudicator Johal held that the claimant was not entitled to elevated retroactive ACBs because he provided no evidence why it was impossible...
Read More
January 7, 2020
/
tgp-admin

C.C. v. Erie Mutual Insurance Company (18-010778)

The claimant sought entitlement to NEBs and ACBs. Adjudicator Boyce dismissed the claims. He held that the claimant failed to place sufficient evidence before Tribunal regarding her pre-accident activities, her post-accident activities, the changes she experienced because of the accident, and the activities she placed most importance on. Further, the evidence available suggested that the...
Read More
January 6, 2020
/
tgp-admin

M.B. v. Aviva General Insurance Company (19-000030)

The claimant sought entitlement to psychological treatment, a chronic pain program, and interest on the payment of overdue benefits. Adjudicator Boyce found that the claimant was entitled to the portion of the disputed psychological treatment plan for psychological sessions; however, with respect to the remaining elements of the disputed treatment plan, he agreed with the...
Read More
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100

Contact Us

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

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com

  • Areas of Practice
  • Mediation
  • Our Lawyers
  • News
  • Case Summaries
  • Careers

Contact Us

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

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com

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

Powered by Crow & Pitcher

Contact Us

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

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com