Print

 

 Volume. 6 Issue. 6 – February 16, 2022



We begin this week with the Tribunal considering two incidents, both ultimately being found as “staged” collisions. Following Tribunal jurisprudence, in each instance, both were found not to satisfy the definition of “accident” in accordance with the Schedule.

The final case, a reconsideration dealing with what constitutes a ‘completed’ OCF3 – the Vice-Chair, eschewing what seemed settled jurisprudence as established by the Tribunal, states “I correctly considered and applied the applicable legislation.”


 

Advance your best case with an Outcome Analysis Report!

Request OAR



In Trending – Precedents Followed in 2 Staged Accidents

Collision Not “Accident” Despite Police AttendingIn Gyesus v Royal Sun Alliance (21-001119), the Tribunal confirmed that the parties were indeed in an “accident” however not with each other, even though police attended at the “scene”.

It was the opinion of the RSA’s expert that “the vehicles were in separate collisions with other vehicles that were not involved in this accident.” The expert found that the extracted data from the “black boxes” of each vehicle were not related to the same collision, and further the accident as described would “defy the law of physics”.

Gyesus relied upon the fact that the police attended and created an accident report. The Tribunal however found that “having the police attend at the scene and create a motor vehicle accident report is not sufficient proof to establish an accident occurred as defined in section 3 of the Schedule in light of some inconsistencies from her evidence and the conclusions set out in the (Respondent expert’s) Report.” The Tribunal was further influenced by there being no satisfactory reason for the vehicles having been towed from the accident scene in London to Mississauga as well as the failure to call any of the available corroborating witnesses, or to produce requested phone records of calls alleged to 911 and the police.

It was noted that in a prior decision of the Tribunal, M.D. v. Intact, it was “determined that a staged accident is an intentional act that is contrary to public policy. Allowing a party to claim accident benefits from a staged accident would be contrary to the public policy and section 118 of the Insurance Act which reads:

“Unless the contract otherwise provides, a contravention of any criminal or other law in force in Ontario or elsewhere does not, by that fact alone, render unenforceable a claim for indemnity under a contract of insurance except where the contravention is committed by the insured, or by another person with the consent of the insured, with intent to bring about loss or damage…”

Not Sure What Happened, But Not “Accident”Similarly, in R. H. v Wawanesa (18-011887), the Tribunal considered whether an “incident” as described was an accident”. Ultimately, the inconsistencies between the accounts of the passengers, driver and that of R. H. were “so copious that it calls into question the totality of the evidence of how the incident occurred.” It “behooves logic” that “three people who supposedly experienced the same traumatic day have differing recollections for that day.”

As Wawenesa’s expert confirmed the vehicle in question to have been in a decided state of disrepair that would have been noticeable, it further “behooves logic that three people in a vehicle driving for a full afternoon on highways and city streets noted, provided statements under oath, and testified that there was nothing at all noticeably wrong with the vehicle.”

Ultimately, the Tribunal held that “While I cannot with any specificity say what transpired on the day of the incident, or the cause for the contact of the tree and the vehicle and the events in and around this incident or how the vehicle and tree made contact, I am persuaded that the applicant’s account of what transpired is not to be believed…”.

As in the previous case, reference was made to M.D. v Intact, that while not binding “has been adopted by the Tribunal in other decisions and thus, I adopt that holding that a staged accident is not an accident.”



Prior Tribunal Decisions “Are at Most Persuasive”

Prior Tribunal Decisions Persuasive at Most? – In a prior issue, we featured a case Munu Munu v Aviva (20-005924), wherein the Vice-Chair “doubled down” on a unique interpretation requiring an OCF3 to endorse NEB entitlement in order for the OCF3 to be considered complete.

Hearing its own reconsideration, the Vice-Chair once again opted to double down, concluding that “I correctly considered and applied the applicable legislation.” The Tribunal reiterated the contention that “a completed” disability certificate can only be reasonably interpreted to mean completed in a manner that certifies that the applicant meets the criterion for NEB”.

The Vice-Chair found that “I did not violate the rules of procedural fairness or make any errors of fact and law by failing to follow Tribunal and FSCO decisions cited by the applicant. None of these decisions are binding on me and, after consideration of all of the case law submitted by the applicant, I found them unhelpful…”. Countering the Applicant’s contention, the Vice-Chair further confirmed “stare decisis does not require a tribunal to follow its own decisions which are, at most, persuasive.” Therefore, the failure to follow these non-binding decisions “is not an error or violation of procedural fairness.”



Access inHEALTH’s research resources through Live Chat and receive your OAR. Get It now!

 

Archive of LAT Updates

March 27, 2024: Supreme Court Takes Issue with Tribunal, Divisional Court & Court of Appeal

Limitation Period, Reconsideration, Supreme Court

March 25, 2024: Expert’s Conclusory Statement Insufficient on Pre-existing Condition

MIG

March 20, 2024: Non-Compliance by Both Parties Impacts IRB and Medical Claims

IRB

March 18, 2024: No Weight Afforded to Handwritten Illegible CNR’s

MIG

March 13, 2024: Denials Deficient and Pain Relief Validates Treatment Plans

Treatment Plans

March 11, 2024: “Radicular Irritation” & MRI Findings Not MVA Related

MIG

March 6, 2024: Tribunal Upholds Decision Excluding Improperly Secured IEs From the Evidence

Evidence, IE, Reconsideration

March 4, 2024: Concussion and Chronic Pain Diagnoses Require Expertise

MIG

February 28, 2024: Prior Health Concerns Complicate Claim for CAT

CAT

February 26, 2024: Unchallenged Virtual Chronic Pain Assessment Accepted

MIG

February 21, 2024: Consent by Parties for Adjournment Not Determinative

Adjournment, Procedure

February 14, 2024: Tribunal Does Not Accept the CAT Findings of Either Party

CAT

February 12, 2024: MIG Escape on Concussion Diagnosis Despite Resolution of Symptoms

MIG

February 7, 2024: Financial Hardship Not A Defense for Repayment Responsibility

IRB

February 5, 2024: CT Scan of Wrist Fracture Contradicts Medical Opinion

MIG

January 29, 2024: Concussion Despite No Head Injury?

MIG

January 24, 2024: One Assessment Process Produces Two Discrete Reports

CAT, Productions

January 22, 2024: Defective Notices Do Not Trigger Limitation

MIG

January 17, 2024: Election Not Required, LAT Act Invoked & Limits Exhausted?

Award, Limitation Period

January 15, 2024: Chronic Pain Diagnosis Contradicted by Self-Reports

MIG

January 10, 2024: NEB Reinstated After Six Years Generates Award

Award, NEB

January 8, 2024: Undisputed Psychological Diagnosis Prevails

MIG

January 3, 2024: Significant & Competing Price of Non-Compliance for Both Parties

Non-Compliance

December 20, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Statutory Relief Within Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

December 18, 2023: ‘Incident’ of Viewing Video Not Use and Operation

MIG

December 13, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

December 11, 2023: Chronic Pain Diagnosis In Absence of Physical Exam?

MIG

December 6, 2023: Four Marked Impairments for 2010 MVA

CAT

December 4, 2023: No Adverse Inference Drawn Despite Lack of pre MVA CNRs

MIG

November 29, 2023 (THROWBACK EDITION): 18 Month Delayed Notice Reasonable, However 7 Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

November 27, 2023: Confirmed High Bar to Escape MIG on Pre-Existing

MIG

November 22, 2023: Multiple IEs Excluded From Evidence

IE, Evidence

November 20, 2023: Radiculopathy Complaint Requires a Diagnosis

MIG

November 15, 2023: Court Applies Tomec & CAT Decision Varied

CAT, Limitation Period

November 13, 2023: Insurer Expert Conclusion Inconsistent with Findings

MIG

November 8, 2023: Maximum Award in Excess of $60K on CAT Case

CAT

November 6, 2023: Medical Evidence Overrides Legal Referrals

MIG

November 1, 2023: Eighteen Month Delayed Notice Reasonable However Seven Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

October 30, 2023: Which MVA Exacerbated Injuries?

MIG

October 25, 2023: Application Seeking CAT Determination an Abuse of Process

CAT

October 23, 2023: Functional Disability Despite 50 Hour Work Week

MIG

October 18, 2023: Statutory Relief Renders Equitable Remedy Moot

Div Court

October 16, 2023: Injuries Not Static - MIG Determined Again

MIG

October 11, 2023: CERB is Income However Not “Gross Employment Income”

IRB

October 4, 2023: Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

October 2, 2023: ‘IE’ Does Not Establish Causation

MIG

September 27, 2023: Post June 1 CAT Criterion 8 Satisfied

CAT

September 25, 2023: Chronic Pain Distinct from Recurring Pain

MIG

September 20, 2023: Expert Opinion Not Required for IRB Entitlement

IRB

September 18, 2023: Inconsistency Argument Not Accepted

MIG

September 13, 2023: IRB Payment Delayed Four Years – 20% Award

Award, IRB

September 11, 2023: MIG Determined Absent Applicants Written Submissions

MIG

August 30, 2023: Pain Determinative in Successful Post June 1 CAT Case

CAT

August 28, 2023: Knee Injury from MVA Caused Slip and Fall & ACL Tear?

MIG

August 23, 2023: WSIB Placement Qualifies for IRB

IRB

August 21, 2023: Absence of Applicant’s Medicals A Difference Maker

MIG

Contact Sales

416.364.6688

Contact Support

Contact Us

InHealth

11 Allstate Parkway Suite 203
Markham, Ontario
L3R 9T8

Follow Us On