In a recent reconsideration decision from the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), the applicant secured a significant partial victory following the LAT’s decision released on November 6, 2025. After being denied attendant care benefits and multiple treatment plans, the applicant sought reconsideration under Rule 18.2 of the License Appeal Tribunal Rules (Rules).
On February 13, 2026, Craig Mazerolle, Vice Chair at the LAT, released a decision that revisited the LAT’s analysis and corrected key errors which resulted in another important win for accident benefits claimants.
Background
The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle collision on August 19, 2021. As she was riding her bicycle, helmeted, she was struck by a vehicle on her left side, causing her to be thrown from her bike. As a result, she sustained serious injuries. These injuries developed into cognitive and psychological impairments that impeded her ability to complete her activities of daily living, including meal preparation and feeding herself.
The applicant applied to the LAT to determine whether she was entitled to attendant care benefits, a treatment plan for meal delivery services which includes preparation and delivery of seven meals per week for a period of three months, two treatment plans for nutrition counselling, a treatment plan for a visual skills assessment, an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 and interest on any overdue payment of benefits.
The LAT found that the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits, the disputed treatment plans, interest or an award under s.10 of Reg 664.
The applicant requested reconsideration of the decision released November 6, 2025. The applicant relied on all three grounds under Rule 18.2 of the Rules.
Reconsideration Decision
The request for reconsideration was granted in part. Vice-Chair Mazerolle held that the LAT erred in its analysis of attendant care benefits and disputed treatment plans for meal delivery services.
Instead of ordering a new hearing, Vice-Chair Mazerolle felt he had enough information to determine the appropriate remedy for each issue. He found that the applicant was entitled to payment of an attendant care benefits for daily meal preparation assistance in the amount of $448.49 per month from April 18, 2023 to date and ongoing, on incurred services. And, although he held that the LAT erred on its analysis related to treatment plans for meal delivery services, he found that the applicant did not demonstrate the reasonable and necessary nature of the treatment plans and confirmed the LAT’s earlier denial.
Attendant Care Benefits
According to Vice-Chair Mazerolle, the LAT erred in its analysis of the applicant’s entitlement to attendant care benefits.
It was shown that the applicant suffers from cognitive and psychological impairments that significantly impact her ability to prepare meals and feed herself.
The LAT erred in its assessment of the applicant’s inability to feed herself by focussing on her physical ability rather than her cognitive and psychological impairments when faced with the task. According to Vice-Chair Mazerolle: “This focus stands in stark contrast to how the applicant framed her arguments on the issue, namely, with a strong emphasis on her cognitive and psychological limitations. The applicant’s submissions focussed much more on her motivation levels and cognition.”
Although he accepted the respondent’s assessors’ observations regarding the applicant’s physical ability to feed herself, these observations did not address the key reasons why the applicant was requesting these services.
The LAT erred by not explaining why the applicant’s focus on non-physical limitations was not afforded more weight in the analysis.
In determining the appropriate remedy to address these errors, Vice-Chair Mazerolle found that the observations and recommendations submitted in the applicant’s Form 1 were corroborated by the evidentiary record. He states that: “These records together form a picture of an individual who is struggling to muster the cognitive resources necessary to perform the daily task of meal preparation and feeding.”
Denied Treatment Plans
According to Vice-Chair Mazerolle, the LAT erred in its analysis of the applicant’s entitlement to treatment plans for meal delivery services.
The LAT found that the “cost of food” was not a benefit under s. 15 or s. 16 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and therefore denied treatment plans for meal delivery services.
The LAT limited the scope of its discretion by not considering the possible application of s. 15(1)(h) and s. 16(2)(l) to the treatment plans. Vice-Chair Mazerolle indicated that:
Each subsection includes a specific allowance to fund proposals “for which a benefit is not otherwise provided in this Regulation.” By limiting the analysis to only those benefits that are explicitly identified in the Schedule, the Tribunal unduly limited the scope of this remedial legislation.
Although the LAT erred in its assessment of the treatment plans for meal delivery services, Vice-Chair Mazerolle maintained the denial from the LAT. He explained that although the applicant faces significant psychological and cognitive barriers to preparing meals and feeding herself, the treatment plans for meal delivery services can be seen as a duplication of the assistance she will receive from an attendant care provider. One of the major components of the applicant’s impairment is her lack of motivation to complete the task. Vice-Chair Mazerolle felt as though meal delivery services would not address the applicant’s motivational issues and that the presence of an attendant care provider would actively encourage the applicant in this domain.
Procedural Fairness
The written hearing took place on November 1, 2024, and submissions were filed in October,2024. The decision from the LAT was issued on November 6, 2025, more than one full year after the hearing date. The applicant raised the issue of procedural fairness at reconsideration, however Vice-Chair Mazerolle found that the delay in the release of the LAT’s decision did not amount to a material breach in procedural fairness.
Conclusion
This reconsideration emphasizes the importance of challenging LAT decisions where errors of law or fact are evident. While the denial of the meal delivery treatment plans ultimately stood, the applicant successfully demonstrated that the LAT failed to properly assess the cognitive and psychological nature of her impairments in relation to attendant care. The result: ongoing entitlement to attendant care benefits.
The decision serves as a reminder that reconsideration is not merely procedural, it can provide meaningful outcomes for accident victims. When the record supports it, requesting reconsideration may be the critical step in correcting an unjust result.
