• Areas of Practice
  • Our Lawyers
  • News
  • Case Summaries
    • LAT Law Cases
    • Commercial/Tort Law Cases
Menu
  • Areas of Practice
  • 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.

Search
Generic filters
April 3, 2017
/
tgp-admin

G.P. v. Cumis General Insurance Company (16-003144)

The claimant sought entitlement to various medical benefits and a catastrophic impairment determination. The insurer argued that the claimant had not attended two of five IEs it had requested. Adjudicator Pay held that section 55 did not apply, and that the multiple IEs requested by the insurer were not reasonable. The claim was allowed to...
Read More
March 31, 2017
/
tgp-admin

Optimum Insurance Company (16-000760)

The claimant sought entitlement to an in-home assessment and assistive devices. After weighing the evidence, Adjudicator Pay found the treatment plans reasonable and necessary. Although the insurer raised objections to the Reply submissions of the claimant, Adjudicator Pay stated: "Because these submissions of the applicant were not relevant to the determination of the dispute, I...
Read More
March 31, 2017
/
tgp-admin

A.A. v. Aviva Insurance (16-002670)

The claim for various medical benefits and MIG removal was dismissed because the claimant did not participate in the written hearing. Adjudicator Marzinotto held that the insurer did not need to bring a formal notice for a dismissal because the parties had agreed to a written hearing to be held March 14, 2017. Rather, the...
Read More
March 28, 2017
/
tgp-admin

S.C.L. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (16-001683)

The claimant was struck by a golf cart while on the driveway of a private golf course. The insurer denied that an "accident" had occurred because the golf cart did not qualify as an "automobile". Adjudicator Sewrattan agreed with the insurer and concluded that the golf cart was not an "automobile" because it was not...
Read More
March 28, 2017
/
tgp-admin

P.K. v. Cumis General Insurance (16-001809)

The claimant sought entitlement to eight treatment plans, including prescription medication. Adjudicator Sewrattan found five of the treatment plans were not payable as the treatment was incurred before the submission of treatment plans. When interpreting section 38(2), it was noted that there was no "reasonable excuse" exception; therefore, if the claimant did not meet any...
Read More
March 28, 2017
/
tgp-admin

M.P. v. Northbridge Personal Insurance Corporation (16-001394)

The claimant had already previously adjourned two case conferences due to a death in the family and medical reasons. A preliminary issue hearing was scheduled; however, it was subsequently withdrawn by the insurer and the matter was set to proceed to a hearing. The claimant sought to adjourn a written hearing, so she could undergo...
Read More
March 28, 2017
/
tgp-admin

E.F. v. RBC Insurance Company (16-001038)

The claimant sought entitlement to physiotherapy and an FAE. The insurer denied the treatment based on a MIG determination. Adjudicator Anwar considered the medical evidence submitted, including family doctor clinical notes and records, and determined the claimant did not prove entitlement to treatment beyond the MIG.
Read More
March 28, 2017
/
tgp-admin

B.W. v. Royal SunAlliance Insurance (16-001517)

The claimant sought entitlement to five treatment and assessment plans. The insurer denied the treatment based on a MIG determination. Adjudicator Johal dismissed all claims and upheld the MIG determination. Of note, while Adjudicator Johal found the claimant did suffer from issues of anxiety, depression, sleeping problems, and panic attacks prior to the accident, it...
Read More
March 27, 2017
/
tgp-admin

M.F. v. Belair Direct (16-002057

The insurer brought a preliminary issue motion asserting the claimant was not entitled to income replacement since the claimant knowingly drove without a license, pursuant to section 31 of the SABS. Adjudicator Sewrattan reviewed Section 2.2.1 of OAP 1. It was noted that while a broad interpretation favouring the insured was asserted, not even a...
Read More
March 27, 2017
/
tgp-admin

G.A. v. Co-Operators General Insurance Company (16-001976)

The claimant sought entitlement to income replacement benefits. The insurer asserted a limitations defence. Adjudicator Sewrattan noted that the LAT assumed jurisdiction of accident benefits disputes on April 1, 2016. The parties agreed the 90-day grace period beyond a report of mediator is not applicable to LAT disputes. Adjudicator Sewrattan noted the claimant had ample...
Read More
March 24, 2017
/
tgp-admin

T.E. v. Unifund Assurance Company (16-001326)

A preliminary hearing was held to decide whether the claim for IRBs was barred by the limitation period. Adjudicator Sewrattan concluded that the denials by the insurer were clear and unequivocal, and that the claim for IRBs was therefore barred. No costs were awarded.
Read More
March 24, 2017
/
tgp-admin

P.C. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Inc. (16-000989)

The claimant sought entitlement to three treatment plans. The insurer denied the plans and maintained a MIG position. Adjudicator Truong reviewed the medical reports and found each to have competing views; as a result, a review of the clinical notes was undertaken. On review, the claimant was said to suffer from soft tissue injuries and...
Read More
March 23, 2017
/
tgp-admin

Y.Y. v. Unica Insurance Inc. (16-000552)

The claimant sought entitlement to attendant care benefits. Adjudicator Theoharis did not find the account of the service provider credible as the testimony was vague and did not sound convincing when cross-examined. Additionally, the claimant provided contrary evidence to a statutory declaration. The evidentiary record also contained conflicting accounts as to who provided services, if...
Read More
March 23, 2017
/
tgp-admin

W.P. v. Aviva Insurance (16-000693)

In this preliminary issue decision, the insurer argued that the claimant had failed to attend an IE and EUO and therefore could not proceed to arbitration at the LAT. Adjudicator Neilsen held that the insurer's request for an IE was reasonable, and the insurer had provided a notice that satisfied section 38 of the SABS....
Read More
March 23, 2017
/
tgp-admin

N.M. v. Certas Direct Insurance Company (16-001438)

The claimant sought entitlement to medical benefits. The insurer denied the benefits and held the claimant within the MIG. The claimant argued that a pre-existing condition of spina bifida warranted removal from the MIG. The claimant also advanced a chronic pain and psychological impairment argument. Adjudicator Rebecca Hines noted that the asserted pre-existing condition was...
Read More
March 23, 2017
/
tgp-admin

Applicant v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (16-001181)

This is a reconsideration decision under LAT Rule 18.2(b) wherein the original decision found the claimant not entitled to claim expenses related to a trip to Disney World. Executive Chair Lamoureux noted that there were no further submissions on the part of the claimant, and it appeared the Tribunal was merely "urged to discover the...
Read More
March 21, 2017
/
tgp-admin

Applicant v. Aviva Insurance Company (16-001144)

The original adjudicator had awarded IRBs up to the 104 week mark, which was a future date; the weekly quantum of IRBs awarded was not analysed in the decision. The insurer appealed the adjudicator's order related to the period and quantum of IRBs. Executive Chair Lamoureux accepted the insurer's arguments and held that the order...
Read More
March 21, 2017
/
tgp-admin

Applicant (Minor) v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (16-000323)

The minor claimant sought removal from the MIG based on incomplete medical records and selective school records showing absenteeism. Adjudicator Mather rejected the claimant's position and held that there was insufficient evidence to show that the relatively minor accident was related to the claimant's school performance or causing any psychological difficulties.
Read More
March 17, 2017
/
tgp-admin

Applicant v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (16-000433)

The insurer requested reconsideration of a costs award against it arising out of the failure to provide records. Executive Chair Lamoureux overturned the costs award, writing that the adjudicator's decision was premised on incorrect facts (the dispute had been resolved at the time).
Read More
March 17, 2017
/
tgp-admin

Applicant v. TD General Insurance Company (16-000134 and 16-000646)

Executive Chair Lamoureux was asked to reconsider two decisions in which the claimant was found MIG and found not entitled to NEBs. The applicant argued that "the entirety" of his evidence was "not considered at all." Similarly, in his request for reconsideration of NEBs the applicant argued that his "evidence was not considered at all...
Read More
March 16, 2017
/
tgp-admin

K.J. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (16-001732)

Adjudicator Pay was asked to exclude a report by Dr. Ogilvie-Harris that was served two days before the hearing date.  Adjudicator Pay allowed the submission of this late report as it was relevant and likely necessary to the determination of the issues in dispute. However, she extended the timelines for the submission of the insurer's...
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

smilne@tgplawyers.com

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

© 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

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

Contact Us

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

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

smilne@tgplawyers.com

  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Statement of Principles

© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP