She reported anxiety over and fear of driving, long drives, other cars
The Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal has found an injured party entitled to a psychological assessment plan for an accident-related psychological impairment that justified removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), but not to treatment plans for physiotherapy services.
In Larocque v Belair Insurance Company Inc., 2026 CanLII 80209 (ON LAT), the applicant was involved in an automobile accident on Jan. 13, 2023.
On July 20, 2023, the applicant informed family practitioner, Dr. May Li Go, that she felt anxious when driving, worried about other cars, and afraid of long drives.
According to Dr. Dinesh Krishna, a physician:
The applicant claimed benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016). The respondent, Belair Insurance Company Inc., denied the requested benefits.
Before the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s Automobile Accident Benefits Service, the applicant applied for a resolution of the dispute.
The Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal determined, on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant:
However, the tribunal did not deem the applicant entitled to the treatment plans for physiotherapy services dated June 21, 2023, Sept. 12, 2023, and Mar. 30, 2024.
The tribunal added that the applicant did not deserve an award payable by the respondent insurer under s. 10 of Reg. 664, given her lack of submissions regarding this live issue.
Alleging psychological issues requiring care beyond the MIG limits, the applicant relied on Dr. Jacqueline Brunshaw’s Mar. 30, 2024, psychological report under s. 25 of the Schedule, diagnosing her with adjustment disorder with anxiety and specific phobia, situational type (vehicular: driver, passenger, pedestrian), moderate-to-severe.
The Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal acknowledged that Dr. Brunshaw’s report primarily relied on the applicant’s own self-reporting and failed to explicitly identify the medical documents reviewed.
However, the tribunal found Dr. Brunshaw’s diagnosis persuasive. The tribunal explained that Dr. Brunshaw’s report stated a specific diagnosis:
The tribunal noted that the respondent insurer failed to submit any evidence expressly contradicting Dr. Brunshaw’s diagnosis.
Given the applicant’s accident-related psychological impairment, as supported by Dr. Brunshaw’s diagnosis, the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal considered the requested treatment plan for a psychological assessment reasonable and necessary.
In accordance with Dr. Krishna’s s. 44 report, the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal did not consider the requested treatment plans for physiotherapy services reasonable and necessary for the injuries the applicant sustained.
Regarding these treatment plans, the tribunal pointed out that the applicant made vague submissions and insufficient contemporaneous medical evidence or opinion recommending the proposed treatment.
The tribunal accepted that Dr. Go’s CNRs reported complaints of headaches and neck pain between Jan. 16, 2023, and July 20, 2023. However, the tribunal noted that Dr. Go did not recommend physiotherapy services.
Here are some other recent injury-related decisions from the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued an Aug. 4 decision determining that an incident involving an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) that crashed into a tree and caused traumatic brain injury to the driver was an accident under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal made a Mar. 5 decision finding that an applicant was involved in an accident under s. 3(1) of the Schedule that involved a Boomer Beast 2 D Deluxe, which qualified as an automobile in ordinary parlance.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury law news on the main page!
