Sabina Arulampalam

Successfully defended insurer against all ten (10) claims made by the Applicant for payment of medical benefits.

The Applicant was found to not be a credible witness. The Tribunal noted various inconsistencies and contradictions which raised “red flags” about the validity of the Applicant’s self-report regarding his accident-related symptoms and impairments. Consequently, the Tribunal assigned little weight to the reports of the Applicant’s assessors which were based on the Applicant’s self-report, and not objective evidence.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not met his onus in proving entitlement to the Treatment Plans in dispute.

Successfully dismissed the Applicant’s appeal.

The Vice Chair reversed the Tribunal’s initial decision on the basis that the adjudicator made an error of fact or law in reaching the conclusion that the Applicant was able to proceed with his claim as he had applied to the Tribunal within the limitation period.

The Vice Chair of the LAT confirmed that while section 7 of the LAT Act grants the Tribunal the discretion to extend limitation periods, the circumstances in which the Tribunal will exercise its discretion should be limited.

It was noted that section 7 of the LAT Act is “not a safety net for litigants who sleep on their rights, or who do not move expeditiously to advance their claims.”

The Vice Chair was not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to grant the Applicant the requested relief to extend the limitation period to allow his late appeal. The Applicant’s claim for an income replacement benefit was dismissed as being out of time.

Successfully argued that the circumstances of the incident in question did not meet with the definition of an “accident” as defined in section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal confirmed that the onus is not on the insurer to refute the circumstances of the incident; rather, the onus remains on the applicant to establish that an incident meets the criteria set out in the causation test outlined by the Court of Appeal in Greenhalgh v ING Halifax Insurance Co. (2004).

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s position was a “gross stretch” of the term as defined in section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and wholly dismissed the Claimant’s Application.

Successfully argued motions for Summary Judgment wherein the Plaintiff brought two actions against his insurer relating to the payment of accident benefits in a single-vehicle accident. Plaintiff’s claims dismissed pursuant to Rule 21.01(3)(a) on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, given the exclusive jurisdiction of the LAT effective April 1, 2016 for matters at first instance.

Successfully defended insurer against claims made by insured for payment of medical benefits including a psychiatric evaluation, social work assessment, and a chronic pain assessment. Tribunal found that the Applicant was not removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) despite chronic pain, and a psychological condition.

Successfully defended insurer against claims made by insured for payment of medical benefits. Tribunal found that the Applicant suffered predominantly minor injuries as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

Successfully awarded costs against a self-represented litigant. Giving consideration to the fact that Intact was entirely successful in the arbitration and the Applicant’s conduct through same,  Arbitrator found that the insurer was entitled to expenses incurred in the arbitration against a self-represented litigant in the amount of $16,700.58.

Successfully defended insurer against claims made by insured for payment of non-earner benefits. The Arbitrator found that the Applicant’s testimony about his pre-accident health was undermined by significant inconsistencies with the available documentary evidence. The lack of credibility about the Applicant’s pre-accident health was found to casts doubt on his testimony about his pre-accident activities. Apart from the Applicant’s testimony, there was no other document or contemporaneous evidence which corroborated his stated normal activities before and at the time of the accident.

Upon reviewing the case and the law the Arbitrator noted the test for entitlement for a non-earner benefit is very strict. The Arbitrator was not satisfied that the Applicant provided sufficient, persuasive and reliable evidence to establish that he is entitled to non-earner benefit and the application was dismissed.