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

December 1, 2016

/

tgp-admin

L.W. v. The Co-operators General Insurance Company (16-000536)

The claimant sought entitlement to six treatment plans. Adjudicator Sewrattan adopted FSCO case law on the legitimacy of pain relief being a reasonable and necessary goal of treatment, and awarded all six treatment plans. The adjudicator also rejected the insurer's position that surveillance could accurately capture the sensation of pain.

November 29, 2016

/

tgp-admin

D.J. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (16-000098)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to various treatment plans. Adjudicator Theoharis concluded that the claimant suffered from depression and anxiety, which entitled her to benefits above the MIG limits. However, Adjudicator Theoharis concluded that all treatment plans for physical treatment were not reasonable and necessary, as the claimant had met maximum...

November 21, 2016

/

tgp-admin

J.W. v. Echelon General Insurance Company (16-000082)

The claimant sought IRBs for both the first 104 weeks after the accident, and beyond the first 104 weeks after the accident. Adjudicator Flude accepted the that the claimant met the "complete inability" test as neither the claimant nor the insurer submitted evidence of employment for which the claimant might reasonably be suited by education,...

November 15, 2016

/

tgp-admin

J.W. v. The Co-operators General Insurance Company (16-000248)

The claimant sought IRBs during a period in which he was in non-compliance with the requirement to attend an IE. He argued that there were no "medical and any other reasons" in the IE notice. Adjudicator Richards upheld the non-payment of IRBs, stating there is no requirement to "invent" a medical reason; medical and other...

November 8, 2016

/

tgp-admin

R.M. v. Optimum Insurance Company (16-000344)

The claimant brought an application for interest and a special award on IRBs that had been miscalculated by the insurer. Adjudicator Bickley awarded interest on IRBs after they were recalculated at a higher amount. A special award was denied because the parties had proceeded on the shared assumption of the weekly IRB quantum for six...

November 2, 2016

/

tgp-admin

J.T. v. Intact Insurance Company (16-000041)

Rule 19.1 provides that costs may be requested during a proceeding if a party, during a proceeding, acts unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously and/or in bad faith. Correspondence which took place prior to the LAT application cannot be considered under Rule 19.1. A special award was not given because the insurer did not "withhold or delay" payment...

November 2, 2016

/

tgp-admin

D.S. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company (16-000201)

The claimant sustained a catastrophic impairment. The claimant applied for caregiver benefits. The main issue was whether the claimant or his wife was the primary caregiver at the time of the accident. The claimant was denied caregiver benefits by Adjudicator Treksler because his wife was found to be the primary caregiver from both a quantitative...

November 1, 2016

/

tgp-admin

B.U. v. Aviva Canada Inc. (16-000143)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to ACBs and various medical benefits. The claimant was removed from the MIG based on psychological grounds and awarded various assessments and psychological treatment. ACBs were denied. Adjudicator Lester noted that even if the claimant had been found to require personal assistance, the evidence did not...

October 28, 2016

/

tgp-admin

S.A.R. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (16-000212)

The claimant sought entitlement to NEBs and various medical benefits. Adjudicator Pay found that the initial denial of NEBs was not vitiated by subsequent correspondence from the insurer denying NEBs. The opposite result was found in relation to two treatment plans. Although the plans were denied four years prior to the LAT application, the insurer...

October 26, 2016

/

tgp-admin

C.S. v. Unifund Assurance Company (16-000087)

The claimant sought entitlement to four treatment plans and removal from the MIG. As a preliminary issue, the insurer argued that two treatment plans were barred by the limitation period. Adjudicator An concluded that one treatment plan was statute barred, but that the claimant had applied to the LAT in a timely fashion for the...

October 20, 2016

/

tgp-admin

S.G. v. The Personal Insurance Company (16-000338)

The claimant sought to admit an audio recording he made during an IE assessment. The insurer objected to the audio recording being entered as evidence. Adjudicator Lester relied upon the section 15 of the SPPA in establishing her authority to determine what evidence to admit at the hearing. She concluded that the audio recording was...

October 20, 2016

/

tgp-admin

D.S. v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company (16-000279)

A completed OCF-3 was submitted; the claimant was said to have not met the test for NEBs. An OCF-10 was submitted whereby the claimant elected NEBs. The insurer sought a preliminary hearing to have the claimant's claim for NEBs dismissed without a hearing. Adjudicator Pay concluded that the claimant was still entitled to pursue a...

October 19, 2016

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v. Aviva (16-000474)

This is a reconsideration of the LAT's failure to consider a request for costs by the insurer following the claimant's withdrawal of a LAT application. Executive Chair Lamoureux concluded that it was a violation of procedural fairness for the Tribunal to have failed to consider the insurer's request for costs. The matter was sent back...

October 5, 2016

/

tgp-admin

M.R. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (16-000216)

The claimant was involved in an MVA in December of 2013. An OCF-1 was submitted in February of 2014. Aviva sent OCF-9s in February, March, April, and May 2014, informing the Applicant that the MIG governed her injuries and as such she did not have coverage for attendant care benefits. The Applicant brought an application...

October 3, 2016

/

tgp-admin

Applicant v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (16-000063)

The claimant applied to the LAT for both NEBs and IRBs. This preliminary hearing was to determine whether the claimant was entitled to litigate claims for both NEBs and IRBs. Adjudicator Marzinotto held that the insurer should have provided an election to the claimant, but had failed to do so. As a result, the claimant...

September 30, 2016

/

tgp-admin

D.M. v. RBC General Insurance Company (16-000080)

The claimant sought home modifications in the form of home repairs. The words "modification" and "repair" were not defined in the SABS. Adjudicator Truong ruled that a "repair" can be a "modification" and held that some of the repairs were payable because such repairs were linked the Applicant's safety and were needed to assist the...

September 13, 2016

/

tgp-admin

S.L. v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company (16-000213)

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss a claim on the basis of the claimant's non-attendance at IEs and due to the overlap with issues previously before FSCO. The IE notices were deemed insufficient; therefore, the insurer's s. 55 defence did not apply. The claimant was not barred from proceeding with the issues that were...

September 8, 2016

/

tgp-admin

J.H. v. Intact Insurance Company (16-000009)

The claimant sustained a catastrophic impairment and sought mileage expenses for his service providers. Adjudicator Pay held that the SABS did not require the insurer to pay for the mileage expenses of the service providers (the insurer was already paying for the hourly rate of the service providers, which included their transportation time).

September 1, 2016

/

tgp-admin

K.P. v. Aviva Canada Inc. (16-000046)

The claimant sought medical benefits outside of the MIG. Vice Chair Flude considered the list of injuries the claimant claimed to have sustained in the accident. He held that there was no evidence provided linking the injuries to the accident, or to show that the injuries did not fall under any of the "minor injury"...

September 1, 2016

/

tgp-admin

A.P. v. Aviva Canada (16-000045)

The claimant sought further IRBs and medical benefits out of the MIG. Vice Chair Flude held that the claimant did not suffer from a pre-existing condition, was not suffering chronic pain syndrome, and could perform the essential tasks of her employment. IRBs were denied and the claimant was restricted to MIG level benefits.

August 30, 2016

/

tgp-admin

S.S. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (16-000084)

The claimant sought removal from the MIG, and entitlement to a treatment plan for physical therapy. Adjudicator Theoharis concluded that the claimant had sustained a "minor injury" and did not suffer a pre-existing condition that would prevent him from being treated under the $3,500 limit. The claimed treatment plan was denied.

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