Chloe Lester

The applicant sought the production of board meeting minutes from the respondent condominium corporation.

During the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution process, the parties reached a settlement at the mediation stage.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the corporation to produce properly ratified minutes recording decisions about a cleaning contract and parking garage repairs within 14 days.

The parties also agreed to waive confidentiality of documents shared during negotiation and mediation.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits after the applicant returned to full-time work, and later suspended them when the applicant failed to attend insurer examinations (IEs) after his employment was terminated.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding to a hearing because he failed to apply within two years of the respondent's valid denial.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant was not entitled to the benefits claimed because he failed to attend properly scheduled IEs.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her injuries were subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied her claimed benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to shift the burden of proof to the respondent, misinterpreting a gap in her medical records, and failing to find the insurer's denial invalid.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that the burden of proof always rests on the applicant.

While acknowledging a potential minor error regarding the medical records gap, the Tribunal found it would not have changed the outcome due to insufficient evidence linking her impairments to the accident.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument regarding the invalid denial due to a lack of specific submissions.

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

A videoconference hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to section 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant provided no submissions or evidence to demonstrate that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, she failed to meet her onus.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and an occupational therapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident where his vehicle went into a canal.

The applicant claimed the accident exacerbated his pre-existing psychosis and caused physical injuries preventing him from working as a food delivery and ride-share driver.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological symptoms were pre-existing and not caused or exacerbated by the accident.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's physical injuries were minor strains that did not result in a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome, meeting the criteria under the AMA Guides, and was therefore removed from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for multiple treatment plans for chiropractic and massage therapy, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant, a Lyft driver, was involved in a rear-end collision and sought income replacement benefits (IRB) from the respondent insurer.

The applicant claimed he was unable to work due to accident-related injuries, including worsened back pain, abdominal pain, heel spurs, acidosis, and psychiatric issues.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The Disability Certificate (OCF-3) indicated he could return to work on modified duties, and there was insufficient medical evidence linking his other alleged conditions to the accident or demonstrating they prevented him from working.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was a passenger in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and funding for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting inconsistencies between her self-reported psychological symptoms and her family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant could still engage in most of her pre-accident activities of daily living, albeit at a slower pace.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while riding her bicycle and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits (IRBs) and denied a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to post-104-week IRBs, as her cognitive impairments, fatigue, and required pacing strategies rendered her completely unable to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited.

However, the Tribunal denied the physiotherapy treatment plan, finding no ongoing physical impairments that necessitated it.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was also dismissed, as the insurer reasonably relied on its assessors' medical opinions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found he was not entitled to benefits or a catastrophic impairment designation.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact regarding the applicable version of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and the rules of discoverability for future claims.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to identify any specific error of law or fact in the original decision that would alter the result.

The Tribunal noted that the original decision does not prevent the applicant from applying for future benefits or arguing discoverability in the future.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, psychological injuries, and pre-existing conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting significant gaps in her medical records and assigning little weight to her expert assessors who were unaware of her pre-accident medical history.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for treatment plans, assessments, and a non-earner benefit, concluding the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

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

During the hearing, several preliminary motions were heard.

The Tribunal excluded the respondent's late-filed catastrophic assessment reports and denied the applicant's request to add catastrophic determination as an issue.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of improperly redacted log notes, finding that 'client-to-client' discussions did not automatically attract litigation privilege.

The Tribunal awarded $2,000 in costs against the respondent for bad faith conduct in failing to comply with previous production orders and improperly redacting documents.

However, the Tribunal declined to state a case for contempt of court.

Following the denial of an adjournment request, the applicant withdrew her application.

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

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were strictly musculoskeletal and that he did not suffer a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's independent examiners over the applicant's occupational therapist and psychotherapist.

The applicant also failed to prove entitlement to a non-earner benefit, as he provided no evidence comparing his pre- and post-accident activities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for the unapproved portions of a catastrophic assessment treatment plan and psychological treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to $2,000 for an overall assessment and final rating report, as the respondent had conducted a similar assessment.

However, the Tribunal denied the remaining assessment fees and held that a psychotherapist providing treatment should be paid at the Guideline rate of $99.75 per hour, not the psychologist rate of $149.61 per hour.

The claim for an award was dismissed as no submissions were provided.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer classified the injuries as minor and denied a chiropractic treatment plan of $1,096.00 once the $3,500.00 funding limit was exhausted.

The applicant argued his pre-existing multiple sclerosis and back pain, along with a concussion and adjustment disorder, warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence linking the psychological disorder or concussion to the accident, and no evidence that the accident worsened his pre-existing conditions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment designation and entitlement to attendant care benefits and various treatment plans following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was causation, as the applicant experienced subsequent accidents, medical conditions including seizures and a Hills-Sachs lesion, and significant life stressors post-accident.

The Tribunal found that while the accident initially exacerbated pre-existing physical impairments and triggered some psychological symptoms, the applicant's current severe psychological impairments were caused by intervening life events and medical issues unrelated to the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the 'but for' test for causation, dismissing the application for catastrophic designation and all claimed benefits.

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

The respondent denied further treatment plans and attendant care benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's soft tissue injuries were properly classified as minor, preferring the respondent's orthopedic assessment over the brief clinical notes of the applicant's osteopath.

As the funding limit was exhausted and minor injuries do not qualify for attendant care, the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he was not catastrophically impaired.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to decide on his diagnosis, omitting mention of a psychiatric report, and failing to account for his reports of pain in assessing his psychological impairments.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no errors of fact or law that would have altered the outcome.

Even when explicitly considering the applicant's pain disorder under the Pastore framework, the evidence demonstrated at most a moderate impairment in adaptation, falling short of the marked impairment required for a catastrophic designation.

The respondent's cross-request to reconsider a costs award for interfering with a witness was also dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired under the Glasgow Outcome Scale, Extended (GOSE).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made several errors of law and fact in interpreting the GOSE guidelines, including failing to consider specific individual circumstances, future risks of harm, and the use of modern technology for assistance.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact that would alter the original decision, and held that the GOSE guidelines, having been incorporated into the Schedule, must be applied according to their established parameters.

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

The insurer initially deemed her catastrophically impaired but later reversed its decision based on an addendum report.

The applicant disputed the denial of several treatment plans submitted during the period she was deemed catastrophically impaired.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that the insurer could not retroactively apply its decision to revoke the catastrophic impairment designation, as the Schedule is consumer protection legislation.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to apply for enhanced catastrophic policy coverage during that period.

The Tribunal partially approved two psychological treatment plans and two physical therapy treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary, but denied the remaining treatment plans and the request for an award.