Print
 

 Volume. 6 Issue. 45 – November 16, 2022


This week the Tribunal grappled with an IRB claim wherein the applicant purported to be “employed” prior to the accident, whereas the evidence at hearing suggested rather that he was “self-employed”. Ultimately however even this was to be interpreted with due caution.


Need help finding cases? Reach out to our Live Chat Experts for guided searches!



Applicant Not Entitled to IRB Due to Conflicting Quantum Evidence

“Employed” or “Self Employed”, Which Will It Be? – Following a February 2017 accident, the Applicant Hibbert, in 20-009328 v Aviva, received IRB at the rate of $245 per week until entitlement was stopped following an IE in August 2018.

The rate was based upon an OCF2 from one of Hibbert’s two purported employers, a fitness studio. The second employer, for whom Hibbert was a sound engineer, had not provided evidence to allow for a calculation as at the date of termination. Aviva was not prepared to accept the OCF2 submitted from the sound studio. The Tribunal was asked to rule upon IRB entitlement from February 2017 through to June 2019, less amounts previously paid.

At the hearing however, it was determined as “undisputed” that Hibbert was in fact the exclusive owner of the fitness studio, not an employee. Further, the individual who signed off on the OCF2 previously relied upon, was Hibbert’s girlfriend at the time. Confusion reigned supreme here, with Hibbert having (in 2020 and 2021) filed personal income tax returns for 2016 through 2019.

The only income reported by the applicant in these tax returns was in 2016 and in a refiled 2019 return (the initial 2019 return filed showed no income). All income reported on his tax returns was from self-employment. There was no employment income reported in his tax returns as represented on the OCF-2s. The “pre-accident 2016 and 2017 tax returns filed in 2021, showed him to be self-employed and not working respectively.”

Aviva’s accountant was “unable to determine if the information reported in the applicant’s 2016 tax return was reasonable and plausible.” Conversely, the accountant for Hibbert “assumed that the information reported by the applicant in his 2016, 2018, 2019 and 2020 tax returns was valid for the purpose of its calculations. There was no verification by Hibbert’s accountant of the income information in these tax returns, which were based on applicant self-reporting and had not been audited. With regard to 2017, Hibbert’s accountant chose not to accept the information in the applicant’s 2017 tax return which showed no income activity.” In total, four different scenarios were advanced by or on behalf of Hibbert.”.

The Tribunal further determined that “applicant had a continuing business relationship with (recording studio) since 2017, whether on a barter basis or otherwise… the evidence which the applicant has presented about his relationship with (recording studio) (is) inconsistent, incomplete and unreliable. Key elements of this relationship appear to have been retroactively defined in 2022.” In addition, “the very issue before the Tribunal turns on the reliability of the income information provided by the applicant. (Hibbert’s accountant) did not assess whether the information it used for the benefit calculations was reasonable or plausible. (Aviva’s accountant) did so.” The “information provided was inconsistent and incomplete to the extent that (Aviva’s accountant) was unable to calculate an income replacement benefit for the applicant.”

Concluding, “while a self-employed person might not be held to a standard of precision when it comes to recordkeeping, however this does not absolve an individual of the onus to provide credible evidence related to quantum upon which an income replacement benefit can be assessed. As there is no reasonable evidentiary basis upon which to assess the quantum of an income replacement benefit from February 21, 2017 through June 2019, the Tribunal cannot find that there is an overdue payment of benefits. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to address other questions of eligibility.”



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

 

Archive of LAT Updates

April 30, 2025: Tribunal Confirms Four Class 4 Marked Impairments

CAT

April 28, 2025: MIG Not Conceded Despite Approved CAT Assessments

MIG

April 23, 2025: Court Reverses Tribunal’s Unreasonable Adjournment Refusal

Adjournment, CAT, Divisional Court

April 21, 2025: MIG Escape on Fractured Tooth 15 Months Later

MIG

April 16, 2025: Deficient Notice Renders NEB Payable

NEB

April 14, 2025: MIG Valid Medical Reason

MIG

April 9, 2025: Bus Travelling Over Elevated Manhole Cover Satisfies “Collision”

Definition Accident

April 7, 2025: Four OCF 18’s Payable Despite MIG Hold

MIG

March 26, 2025: Post 104 IRB Ongoing for Non-CAT

CAT, IRB

March 24, 2025: 30% Award for Failure to Review CNRs Overturned on Reconsideration

MIG

March 19, 2025: Yes to CAT, No to Post 104 IRB

CAT, IRB

March 17, 2025: Imaging Report Alone Insufficient to Establish Causation

MIG

March 12, 2025: Tribunal Rules Again on Matter Referred Back by the Court

Definition Accident, Divisional Court

March 10, 2025: Res Judicata Waived on New Evidence

MIG

March 5, 2025: No Criterion 8 CAT as Physical Pain the Limiting Factor

CAT

March 3, 2025: Cause of Shoulder Tear Degenerative or MVA Related?

MIG

February 26, 2025: NEB Payable to 104 Week Mark Due to Technical Breaches

NEB

February 24, 2025: Doctor Not Required to Provide Diagnosis

MIG

February 19, 2025: Court Sets Aside Tribunal S.32 Notice Decision

Breaking News, Div Court, Limitation Period

February 12, 2025: Post 104 IRB Despite Employment & No CAT As Only Two Marked Impairments

CAT, IRB

February 10, 2025: GP Evidence Preferred over IE Regarding Concussion

MIG

February 5, 2025: No Election Required Despite Endorsement of IRB & NEB

Procedure, SABS

January 27, 2025: CNR’s + Imaging Determinative of Complete Shoulder Tear

MIG

January 22, 2025: Court of Appeal Upholds Divisional Court Decision

Divisional Court, NEB, Reconsideration

January 20, 2025: GP’s Diagnosis of “Head Injury” Prevails

MIG

January 15, 2025: Tribunal Accepts Neither Expert in Awarding Pre But Not Post 104 IRB

IRB

January 13, 2025: A Brain Contusion is Not Enough for a Concussion Diagnosis

MIG

January 9, 2025: Court Awards $69K in Costs for Apparent Miscarriage of Justice

Divisional Court,Costs

January 6, 2025: Corroborative Evidence Not Necessarily Required in Psych Diagnoses

MIG

December 18, 2024: Applicant Successful in CAT Case Where Respondent’s Expert Unavailable

CAT

December 16, 2024: Applicants Lose on Flawed Interpretation of the Schedule

MIG

December 11, 2024: Court Sends Paraplegic Matter Back to Tribunal re “Accident”

Definition Accident, Divisional Court, Reconsiderations

December 9, 2024: Pre-Existing Conditions MIG Escapes?

MIG

December 4, 2024: Court Remits $770K Award Worthy Matter Back to Tribunal

Award, Divisional Court, IRB

December 2, 2024: GP Questionnaire Does Not Trigger MIG Escape on Pre Existing

MIG

November 27, 2024: Court Remits $200K Award Worthy Matters Back to Tribunal

Award, Divisional Court, IRB

November 25, 2024: Pre-Screen Not Psychological Diagnosis

MIG

November 20, 2024: IE Not Reasonable or Necessary – No to CAT & IRB

CAT, IRB, Procedure

November 18, 2024: No Evidence Pre-Existing Conditions Prevent MMR

MIG

November 13, 2024: Applicant’s Explanation for Delayed Application Found Reasonable

Procedure

November 11, 2024: GP Concussion Diagnosis Accepted as Legitimate

MIG

November 6, 2024: Court Remits “Unsafe” Decision Back for Rehearing

CAT

November 4, 2024: Submissions Do Not = Evidence

MIG

October 30, 2024: Court Remits “Unsafe” Decision Back for Rehearing

CAT, Divisional Court

October 28, 2024: IE Fails to Explain Lack of Diagnosis

MIG

October 23, 2024: Loose Lid Unexpected "Accident"

Definition Accident

October 21, 2024: Dental Work Required Not Caused by MVA

MIG

October 7, 2024: Continuity of Complaints Confirm Chronic Pain

MIG

October 2, 2024: All Items in Dispute Deemed Incurred

Treatment Plans

September 30, 2024: Ignoring Medical Evidence Proves Award Worthy

MIG