The claimant applied to the LAT seeking entitlement to attendant care benefits during two periods: April 2018 to May 11, 2022, and May 12, 2022, to date. In October 2018, the insurer had cancelled a s. 44 in-home assessment because the claimant’s counsel had advised the claimant no longer wanted to claim ACBs. In July 2020, the claimant requested payment for ACBs based on a 2018 Form 1 that had not been submitted via HCAI, and submitted an OCF-18 for a s. 25 in-home assessment. The insurer scheduled s. 44 assessments to address these benefits, but the claimant failed to attend. As a result of his failure to attend multiple assessments, the claimant’s entitlement to benefits was suspended in April 2021. In 2022, a second Form 1 was completed on behalf of the claimant, but this Form 1 was also not properly submitted via HCAI. Adjudicator Griffith found that the claimant was not entitled to ACBs because the Form 1s had not been properly submitted via HCAI, as required by the SABS and FSCO Guidelines, which meant there was no dispute between the parties and the LAT did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue. In addition, Adjudicator Griffith found that the claimant would not otherwise be entitled to ACBs because he had not proven that he incurred ACB expenses. In this regard, the decision notes that the claimant’s wife testified that she was a retired PSW. At the time of the hearing, she had not received a paycheque for work as a PSW for 8 years, but she had volunteered as a PSW at a nursing home until the COVID-19 pandemic. The claimant’s wife testified that she had provided 24-hour AC services to the claimant since 2018. Adjudicator Griffith found that the claimant’s wife was not in the course of her employment, occupation, or profession in which she would ordinarily have been engaged but for the accident when she provided AC services to the claimant. In addition, Adjudicator Griffith found that the claimant failed to show that his wife sustained an economic loss as a result of providing AC services.
