Bonnie Oakes Charron

The applicant, a unit owner, filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking various condominium corporation records.

The parties reached a settlement during the Stage 3 online dispute resolution process.

The Tribunal issued a consent order formalizing the agreement, which required the respondent to provide estimates for the cost of producing specific records and, upon payment, to provide the selected records subject to permitted redactions under the Condominium Act.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments that warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and entitlement to a non-earner benefit, a treatment plan, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on section 44 assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor sprains and strains, and that his knee pain and psychological issues were pre-existing and not aggravated by the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and remained subject to the MIG.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit and several treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The applicant failed to comply with a case conference order requiring pinpoint references in submissions, failed to submit a disability certificate for the income replacement benefit, and failed to submit the treatment plans in dispute.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's section 44 assessments, which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and did not require the disputed treatments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied two treatment plans for a chronic pain assessment and physiotherapy services, arguing the applicant's physical injuries were minor and she had pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the plans were reasonable and necessary, noting the expert opinions of two s. 44 assessors who concluded the physical injuries were minor sprains/strains.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was awarded.

The applicant and respondent both requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) but denied entitlement to disputed treatment plans.

The applicant argued procedural unfairness regarding the written hearing format, page limits, and the requirement for specific submissions on each treatment plan, as well as errors in applying the Varriano principles to the respondent's denial letters.

The respondent argued procedural unfairness and errors of law regarding the Tribunal's consideration of a new s. 25 neurological report and the doctrine of res judicata.

The adjudicator dismissed both requests, finding no material breach of procedural fairness and no errors of law or fact in the original decision.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal excluded the applicant's late-filed medical records due to non-compliance with production orders.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a concussion, chronic pain, or psychological impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

The applicant was held to the $3,500 MIG limit and was only entitled to the remaining balance of $458.67 for incurred benefits, plus interest.

The self-represented applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

At the hearing, the Tribunal denied the applicant's oral request for an adjournment, finding she had not taken reasonable steps to secure new counsel.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's motion to dismiss the application as abandoned.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, preferring the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments over the applicant's oral testimony and unsupported claims.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $100 in costs for her unreasonable conduct and failure to comply with Tribunal orders.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $11,319.71 in Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) paid to the respondent, alleging material misrepresentation regarding her employment at the time of the accident.

The respondent failed to comply with pre-hearing requirements and did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent wilfully misrepresented her employment status and employer to establish entitlement to IRBs.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to repay the full amount of $11,319.71, plus interest, pursuant to section 52 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans and expenses on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and that she failed to establish removal from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain or psychological impairment.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 psychological assessment over the applicant's section 25 assessment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans and expenses were not payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and two treatment plans for chronic pain and attendant care assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove entitlement to the IRB and that his application for the benefit was incomplete due to his failure to submit an Election of Income Replacement, Non-Earner or Caregiver Benefit form (OCF-10).

The Tribunal also found no compelling evidence that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying on the unrefuted opinion of the respondent's physiatrist that the applicant's injuries were soft tissue in nature.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed his injuries were outside the MIG due to chronic pain and sought a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a direct connection between his ongoing pain and the accident, noting gaps in medical evidence, intervening injuries, and other health conditions.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, the chronic pain assessment was not reasonable and necessary, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found him statute-barred from proceeding with his claim for accident benefits due to a delay in submitting his application.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its assessment of communications between the parties and failed to consider the reasonableness of his explanation or prejudice.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of fact or law, as the applicant's explanation for the delay was not credible, which is a prerequisite for considering the remaining principles for delay.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law regarding his claims of a traumatic brain injury, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, and upheld the original decision that the applicant's injuries were minor.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law regarding his claims of a traumatic brain injury, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairment.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The Adjudicator confirmed that the original decision properly weighed the medical evidence, correctly applied the criteria for chronic pain, and appropriately assessed the applicant's psychological functionality.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from Chronic Pain Syndrome (CPS) secondary to the accident, which removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Interest on overdue payments was also awarded.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits nearly a year later.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the applicant failed to submit the application for benefits within the prescribed time limits under section 32 of the Schedule.

The applicant argued she had a reasonable explanation for the delay because her injuries were latent.

The Tribunal found the applicant's explanation was not credible, as medical records contradicted her claim that she was unaware of her injuries until months later.

The Tribunal held the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with her application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by improperly weighing the expert evidence and failing to qualify her expert.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law.

The original decision appropriately gave less weight to the applicant's expert report because it lacked an Acknowledgement of Expert's Duty form and the chronic pain diagnosis was unsupported by other medical evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied various treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued her injuries fell outside the MIG due to a psychological impairment and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and her psychological testing did not support a formal diagnosis.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's section 44 assessors' conclusions that the injuries were minor.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the claim because the applicant failed to submit an application for benefits (OCF-1) within the prescribed time limits under section 32 of the Schedule.

The applicant argued he had a reasonable explanation for the delay, claiming he notified the respondent shortly after the accident and was confused by an email regarding a tort claim and WSIB election.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not provide a credible explanation for the 14-month delay, noting the respondent's multiple unanswered attempts to communicate.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued his injuries were severe and that a pre-existing back condition precluded his recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, which included sporadic visits to his general practitioner and a failure to act on referrals, insufficient to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the reports of the respondent's independent medical assessors, who concluded the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were treatable within the MIG.

The application for treatment plans beyond the $3,500 limit and for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed.