Craig Mazerolle

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied certain treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to properly assess medical evidence, including diagnostic imaging showing a partial tear, and his psychological symptoms.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-weigh the evidence rather than identifying a material error of law or fact.

The Vice-Chair noted that a partial tear is considered a minor injury under the Schedule and that the Tribunal had adequately considered the evidence in its original decision.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $287.88 per week.

The respondent argued the Tribunal erred in its calculation of the applicant's pre-accident income and failed to deduct post-accident Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding the original decision lacked an evidentiary basis for its pre-accident income calculation and erred by not deducting the post-accident EI payments.

The decision was varied to award an IRB of $265.24 per week for a reduced period.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claim for attendant care benefits up to the date of the decision but failed to address her claim for ongoing benefits.

The Vice-Chair found that the Tribunal made an error of fact or law under Rule 18.2(b) by not explicitly determining the issue of ongoing entitlement, which had been properly raised.

The reconsideration was granted, and the issue of ongoing attendant care benefits was ordered to be reheard by a new adjudicator based on the original written submissions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she was not removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its assessment of her psychological and temporomandibular joint impairments, as well as the impact of her pre-existing conditions under section 18(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the weighing of evidence rather than demonstrating an error of law or fact under Rule 18.2(b).

As no benefits were found owing, the claims for an income replacement benefit, an award, and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision denying her claim for statutory accident benefits.

The applicant had witnessed a motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of her husband and claimed psychological injuries from the event.

The original decision found she was not 'involved in' the accident under s. 3(1)(b) of the Schedule because she was merely a witness and was not struck by a vehicle.

On reconsideration, the applicant alleged factual errors regarding the medical evidence and the identity of the vehicle, as well as legal errors in the application of case law.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-weigh evidence and re-litigate the case, and that she failed to establish any material error of fact or law that would have changed the outcome.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to consider her removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) as a standalone issue and denied her claims for an income replacement benefit, an award, and interest.

The applicant, who was self-represented, raised several grounds for reconsideration, including alleged jurisdictional errors, procedural unfairness, and disagreements with the Tribunal's assessment of the medical evidence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the original decision and failed to establish any errors of law or fact, or a material breach of procedural fairness under Rule 18.2.

The applicant's requests for costs against the respondent and the Tribunal were also denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he remained within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied his claims for treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made an error of fact or law under Rule 18.2(b) by incorrectly finding that his orthopaedic surgeon did not opine on whether his pre-existing condition would preclude recovery under the MIG.

The Vice-Chair agreed, noting the expert explicitly stated the pre-existing cervical spine abnormalities would prevent maximal medical recovery within the MIG limits.

Finding this error likely affected the outcome, the Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, cancelled the decision regarding the MIG and treatment plans, and ordered a re-hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied several treatment plans and a claim for an award under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request regarding the award, the psychological assessment, and a chiropractic treatment plan, finding no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

However, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration in part, finding it had erred by failing to explicitly address a physiotherapy treatment plan dated August 14, 2023.

The Tribunal varied its original decision to approve the physiotherapy plan, noting it was supported by a contemporaneous chronic pain assessment.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the Registrar's suspension of his Class A driver's licence.

The suspension was based on evidence that the appellant's road test was tainted by a bribery scheme involving the driver examiner.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made errors of law, applied the wrong standard of proof, and breached procedural fairness by not addressing his licence downgrade or requiring full disclosure of the police investigation.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the appellant was attempting to re-litigate the original decision and had failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed the Registrar's suspension and downgrade of his Class A driver's licence due to suspected fraud in the testing process.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal applied the wrong standard of proof, ignored his personal circumstances, and breached procedural fairness regarding disclosure.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal applied the correct balance of probabilities standard, adequately considered the evidence, and did not breach procedural fairness as no further disclosure was requested during the hearing.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed the suspension of his Class A driver's licence.

The original decision found the appeal moot because the suspension had ended.

The appellant introduced new evidence showing that the suspension notation on his driving record caused his insurance premiums to increase and negatively impacted his employment prospects.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration request under Rule 18.2(c), finding that the new evidence could not have been obtained previously and would likely have affected the mootness finding.

The original decision was cancelled and a rehearing was ordered.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that upheld the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' suspension of his Class A driver's licence and dismissed his motion to add the issue of his licence downgrade.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in its jurisdiction regarding downgrades, misapplied the civil standard of proof, and breached procedural fairness regarding disclosure.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over downgrades under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act, reasonably applied the standard of proof to the evidence of fraud in the road test, and did not breach procedural fairness as the appellant failed to formally move for further disclosure.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied several treatment plans for psychological and chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law regarding the interpretation of the Professional Services Guideline, the application of the limitation period, and the weighing of expert medical evidence.

The applicant also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the case and re-weigh the evidence, and failed to establish any errors of law or fact or a material breach of procedural fairness under Rule 18.2.

The appellant, who was self-represented, withdrew his appeal of a 90-day driver's licence suspension during a teleconference hearing.

The following day, he contacted the Tribunal to reopen his file, citing language barriers and confusion about the process.

The Tribunal treated his request as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023.

The Tribunal found that allowing the withdrawal to stand would constitute a material breach of procedural fairness, as the appellant was not fully aware of the consequences of his decision.

The reconsideration was granted, the previous order was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered before a new adjudicator.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' suspension of his Class A driver's licence and dismissed his motion to add the issue of a licence downgrade.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law, jurisdiction, and procedural fairness, citing recent Tribunal case law and challenging the standard of proof applied to OPP evidence regarding a fraudulent licensing scheme.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no material breach of procedural fairness or error of law, noting that the Tribunal correctly applied the civil standard of proof and lacked jurisdiction over the specific statutory provision used for the downgrade.

The respondent insurer requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding that it failed to properly deny a chiropractic treatment plan under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, triggering the 'shall pay' provisions of s. 38(11).

The Tribunal dismissed the insurer's argument that its submissions were misinterpreted, but agreed that it had overlooked a second denial letter dated October 11, 2024.

The Tribunal found this second letter complied with s. 38(8) and effectively ended the 'shall pay' period.

The original decision was varied to state that the treatment plan is payable only if incurred between the first non-compliant denial on May 4, 2023, and the compliant denial on October 11, 2024.

The applicant, a minor represented by his parent, requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claim for attendant care benefits.

The applicant argued that his former counsel withdrew several issues without informed consent and sought to introduce new evidence regarding his mother's economic loss.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as it was entitled to rely on the former counsel's statements as an officer of the court.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the new evidence regarding economic loss pertained to a different time period and would not likely have affected the original decision.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to an income replacement benefit and found she was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by deciding issues she had removed and by failing to consider her motion submissions and case law regarding the late filing of an OCF-10.

The Vice-Chair found no error regarding the issues decided, but concluded the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness by failing to provide sufficient reasons addressing the applicant's key arguments and case law on the OCF-10 issue.

The reconsideration request was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The applicant insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed its claim for repayment of an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law by requiring proof of motive to establish a 'wilful misrepresentation' under section 52 of the Schedule, rather than accepting recklessness.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the original adjudicator engaged in a comprehensive analysis of the insured's circumstances and did not solely rely on motive.

The insurer failed to demonstrate an error of law or fact under Rule 18.2(b) that would warrant reconsideration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary decision which found that the 'incurred' provisions of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule do not violate the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in its reliance on case law and its discrimination analysis regarding family members providing attendant care.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, and that the original discrimination analysis correctly applied substantive equality principles.