Craig Mazerolle

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for failing to file submissions.

The applicant provided evidence that she had filed a Notice of Withdrawal prior to the written hearing, which the respondent confirmed receiving.

The Tribunal found it had made an error of fact by not recognizing the Notice of Withdrawal and therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue the original decision.

The reconsideration was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and the application was marked as withdrawn.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claim for outstanding amounts for psychological services.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in finding she had not submitted OCF-18 forms and sought to introduce new evidence regarding her psychotherapist's qualifications.

The Vice-Chair found that the Tribunal made a factual error by overlooking the OCF-18 forms submitted with the applicant's reply, which detailed the scope of therapy.

The request for reconsideration was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and the matter was ordered to be reheard by a new adjudicator based on the original written record.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed his claims for accident benefits on the basis that he failed to file submissions or evidence.

The applicant provided proof that his representative had emailed the written submissions and document brief to the Tribunal and the respondent on the due date.

The respondent confirmed receipt.

The Vice-Chair found that the Tribunal made an error of fact by not considering the filed materials, satisfying the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b).

The original decision was cancelled and the matter was ordered to be reheard by a new adjudicator based on the previously filed materials.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied certain treatment plans and a claim for a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its assessment of the evidence regarding psychological, medical, and occupational therapy services.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the original decision and re-weigh the evidence rather than demonstrating a material error of law or fact under Rule 18.2.

The request for a special award was also dismissed as there was no evidence of excessive or imprudent conduct by the insurer.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant catastrophically impaired based on a 55% whole person impairment rating.

The respondent argued the Tribunal provided insufficient reasons, reversed the burden of proof regarding psychiatric impairments, and erred in its assessment of musculoskeletal and headache impairments.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the original panel provided comprehensive, logical reasons for preferring the applicant's medical experts and correctly applied the AMA Guides.

No errors of law, fact, or procedural fairness were established.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found her statute-barred from proceeding with her application for catastrophic impairment benefits due to her failure to attend insurer's examinations.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its analysis of the notices of examination and her medical evidence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate issues already decided and failed to meet the high threshold under Rule 18.2.

The applicant's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for an attendant care benefit (ACB), housekeeping services, and prescription medications following a motor vehicle accident.

The Vice-Chair found that the original decision failed to provide adequate reasons regarding the applicant's daughter's alleged economic loss, constituting a material breach of procedural fairness under Rule 18.2(a).

The reconsideration was granted in part, and the ACB claim was remitted for a rehearing before a new adjudicator.

The requests regarding housekeeping and medications were dismissed, as was the respondent's request for costs.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and dismissed his claims for treatment plans, an award, and interest.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its handling of his family physician's evidence regarding a chronic pain diagnosis and in failing to assess a treatment plan for catastrophic impairment assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decision's weighing of the medical evidence was comprehensive and reasonable.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that because the applicant's injuries were found to be predominantly minor, there was no need to assess whether catastrophic impairment assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for an income replacement benefit and treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Vice-Chair found that the original adjudicator made significant factual errors by overlooking a key letter from the applicant's treating physician that connected his injuries to the accident, and by failing to explicitly consider the applicant's psychological expert evidence.

These errors were found to likely have impacted the outcome of the decision.

The request for reconsideration was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and the matter was ordered to be reheard by a new adjudicator based on the existing written record.

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

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration in part, finding a material breach of procedural fairness regarding the assistive devices treatment plan because the original decision failed to adequately address the applicant's argument that the insurer's denial notice violated s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Vice-Chair varied the decision to find the denial non-compliant, entitling the applicant to payment of the assistive devices plan.

The requests for reconsideration regarding the neuro-ocular therapy and chronic pain assessment treatment plans were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she remained within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to explicitly address key evidence of her functional limitations, specifically an in-home occupational therapy assessment report.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding that the failure to address this central evidence regarding chronic pain and functional limitations constituted an error of fact or law that likely impacted the outcome.

The original decision was cancelled and the matter was remitted for a rehearing before a new adjudicator based on the existing written record.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he was not catastrophically impaired and dismissed his claims for an income replacement benefit (IRB) and other benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its causation analysis and failed to address his argument for IRB entitlement under s. 36(6) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the causation arguments, finding no error in the Tribunal's application of the 'but for' test.

However, the Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration request in part, finding the Tribunal erred by failing to explicitly consider the applicant's s. 36(6) argument regarding the insurer's alleged failure to provide a compliant denial.

A written re-hearing was ordered solely to determine the applicant's entitlement to an IRB under s. 36(6), along with related claims for an award and interest.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he was not catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that the panel erred in its assessment of medical evidence from several experts and improperly applied the AMA Guides for impairment ratings under Criteria 6, 7, and 8.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the panel's factual findings and re-weigh the evidence.

The Vice-Chair concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate any material errors of law or fact, or breaches of procedural fairness, that would have likely changed the outcome of the original decision.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and dismissed his claims for a chiropractic treatment plan, an award, and interest.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to address his argument under s. 38(11) of the Schedule regarding a defective notice of examination, and that it erred in its assessment of his chronic pain evidence.

The Vice-Chair acknowledged the Tribunal erred by not explicitly addressing the s. 38(11) argument, but found this error would not have changed the outcome because s. 38(11) is not triggered by a breach of s. 44(5).

The Vice-Chair dismissed the remaining grounds, finding the applicant was improperly attempting to re-litigate the Tribunal's weighing of the medical evidence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the request because the appellant had not yet received written reasons for the decision, making it impossible to assess the merits of the reconsideration request under Rule 18.2.

The Tribunal also noted procedural deficiencies, including the failure to use the required form and the representative's failure to file a Declaration of Representative.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant $25,280.00 for a catastrophic assessment treatment plan.

The respondent argued the Tribunal failed to apply the $2,000.00 statutory limit per assessment under s. 25(5) of the Schedule and improperly awarded separate fees for duplicative assessments and a file review.

The Tribunal found it had erred by not addressing these key arguments in the original decision.

The reconsideration was granted in part, and the applicant's entitlement to the treatment plan was reduced to $17,176.00.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she remained within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied her claims for psychological services and assessments.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in framing the issues, interpreting the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and weighing the evidence, particularly an independent medical examination report.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that while the adjudicator erred in considering the applicant's lack of objection to a non-compliant Notice of Examination, this error would not have likely changed the outcome given the weakness of the applicant's own medical evidence.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found he remained within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and was not entitled to an income replacement benefit (IRB) or other disputed benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in assessing the medical evidence, including requiring contemporaneous records for psychological impairments, and misapplied the test for IRB entitlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the adjudicator properly weighed the evidence, including the reliability of the psychological assessment, and correctly focused the IRB analysis on the essential tasks of the applicant's pre-accident employment.

No errors of law or fact were established under Rule 18.2(b).

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the impoundment of her vehicle.

She argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by not guiding her, as a self-represented party, on what evidence to present, and that it underestimated the hardship caused by the impoundment fee.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the adjudicator was not required to advise the appellant on evidence, as doing so would compromise impartiality.

Furthermore, the adjudicator had properly considered the evidence of hardship, and mere disagreement with the weighing of evidence did not meet the high threshold for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the impoundment of his vehicle.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to his employment and his mother's health, and sought a new hearing to present new evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the appellant failed to provide any new evidence with his request or explain why such evidence could not have been obtained previously, as required by Rule 18.2(c) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was merely attempting to re-litigate the original decision.