In the LAT decision A.B. and Aviva (December 23, 2016) a claim for non-earner benefits, medical benefits and interest was considered. Vice-Chair J.R. Richards followed the well established test set out by the Court of Appeal in Heath v. Economical in considering, “complete inability to carry on a normal life”. When faced with surveillance which showed the claimant working delivering pizzas post accident, the claimant raised a novel argument which will henceforth be called the “pizza oven heat therapy” argument. He stated he was working unpaid as the heat from the pizza ovens alleviated his pain.
-
FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
-
FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
-
FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education