Craig Mazerolle

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that barred him from claiming statutory accident benefits due to his entitlement to WSIB benefits.

The applicant submitted new evidence—an email from the WSIB confirming the withdrawal of his WSIB claim—which was not available at the original hearing.

The Tribunal found that this new evidence met the test under Rule 18.2(c) as it could not have been obtained previously and would likely have affected the original decision.

The reconsideration was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and the matter was sent to a rehearing.

The respondent's request for costs was denied.

The Tribunal initiated a review of its initial and reconsideration decisions under Rule 18.5 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023.

The review focused on whether the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness by relying on the respondent's expert reports when the respondent did not call those experts for cross-examination.

The Vice-Chair found that admitting and relying upon the untested expert evidence, which was pivotal in denying the applicant's claim of catastrophic impairment, constituted a material breach of procedural fairness.

The initial and reconsideration decisions were cancelled in part, and a rehearing was ordered for the determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 and the claim for attendant care benefits.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by demonstrating a reasonable apprehension of bias against her psychiatric assessor and by failing to consider all expert reports.

She also alleged errors of law and fact regarding the assessment of her pain and adaptation to work-like settings under the AMA Guides.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no evidence of bias, noting the adjudicator properly weighed the evidence, and concluding there were no errors in the application of the catastrophic impairment criteria.

The self-represented applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that dismissed her application for accident benefits due to a lack of jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

The adjudicator had found that no accident benefits were in dispute.

The applicant argued that her former counsel had requested benefits, but failed to provide evidence demonstrating an error of law or fact by the Tribunal.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant did not meet the high threshold required under Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to an income replacement benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator erred in interpreting sections 36 and 54 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and failed to provide meaningful reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate unsuccessful arguments and raise new issues that were not presented at the initial hearing, failing to meet the high threshold for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claim for outstanding attendant care benefits, and also brought a motion for the adjudicator to recuse himself due to alleged bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias or institutional bias.

However, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration request in part, finding a material breach of procedural fairness because the adjudicator had reframed the issues by failing to determine the reasonable and necessary quantum of the attendant care benefit, which had been an issue at the initial hearing.

Rehearing the issue based on the existing record, the Tribunal weighed competing occupational therapy assessments and concluded the applicant was entitled to an attendant care benefit of $1,962.55 per month on an ongoing basis.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision confirming his driver's licence suspension under the Highway Traffic Act.

He argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by admitting late-filed evidence and erred in its assessment of his impairment and medical condition.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the appellant had sufficient time to review the evidence.

The Tribunal also found no error in the original panel's conclusion that the appellant failed to prove he was not impaired by a drug, which rendered the medical condition analysis unnecessary.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired and denied her treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator committed a material breach of procedural fairness by providing insufficient reasons.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding the original decision lacked a comprehensive explanation for preferring the respondent's expert evidence and concluding the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The reconsideration request was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and a rehearing based on the existing record was ordered to accommodate the applicant's vulnerability.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying her entitlement to statutory accident benefits.

The original adjudicator dismissed the claim because the applicant failed to provide written submissions, despite filing document briefs.

The applicant argued this was an error of fact and a breach of procedural fairness.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the adjudicator correctly recognized the document briefs and properly concluded that documentary evidence alone, without accompanying submissions to point out key evidence, is insufficient to establish entitlement to benefits.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that granted the applicant a treatment plan for chiropractic services and an award.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration regarding the treatment plan, finding no error in the adjudicator's assessment.

However, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration regarding the award, finding the adjudicator erred by drawing an unsupported negative inference from the insurer's reliance on a section 44 examination.

The Tribunal cancelled the award and, upon rehearing the issue, found the applicant had not established that the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.

The applicant's request for costs was also denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he remained within the Minor Injury Guideline and was not entitled to an income replacement benefit or disputed treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law and fact.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-litigate issues and failed to establish any clear errors of law or fact that would have likely impacted the result.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to disputed treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred by relying on Catic to find that the insurer's late denials did not trigger mandatory payment under s. 38(11) of the Schedule because the plans were not incurred.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness or jurisdictional error, and affirmed that the adjudicator correctly applied binding Divisional Court precedent regarding the interaction between s. 38(8) and s. 38(11).

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for accident benefits.

The applicant, now self-represented, argued that the Tribunal did not listen to his case properly and did not allow his former representative to speak during a case conference.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to provide new evidence under Rule 18.2(c) and failed to identify any error of law or fact under Rule 18.2(b) that would have impacted the result of the written hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that denied her accident benefits under s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act.

The applicant was injured when the public transit vehicle she was occupying made a sudden stop, but did not collide with another vehicle or object.

The Tribunal found that the adjudicator did not err in interpreting 'any other object' to mean something external to the vehicle, and that the applicant herself could not be the object.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that barred his claim for statutory accident benefits because he failed to notify the insurer within seven days of the incident, as required by s. 32(1) of the Schedule.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by providing insufficient reasons regarding prejudice and erred in applying the Horvath test for a reasonable explanation.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the adjudicator provided a logical chain of reasoning and made no identifiable errors of fact or law in weighing the parties' relative prejudice and the length of the delay.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that barred his application for accident benefits based on res judicata.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding the original adjudicator erred by failing to address the applicant's argument that res judicata should be waived based on fairness.

Rehearing the preliminary issue, the Vice-Chair determined that res judicata did not apply because the applicability of the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) was no longer an issue and the new treatment plans required adjudication.

The preliminary issue decision was cancelled, and the matter was ordered to proceed to a written hearing on the remaining preliminary and substantive issues.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a decision cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) after failing to attend the hearing.

The appellant argued under Rule 18.2(c) that new medical evidence, specifically a request for medical clearance for surgery, explained the non-attendance.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the medical letter undated and insufficient to prove the appellant was unable to attend the scheduled hearing or request an adjournment.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to three treatment plans for physiotherapy services and an award.

The applicant argued the adjudicator misapplied sections 49.1 and 64 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule regarding unlicensed service providers and document submission waivers.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to raise section 49.1 at the initial hearing and was attempting to re-litigate arguments regarding section 64, thereby failing to establish an error of law or fact under Rule 18.2(b).

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he was not catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons, displaying bias, and failing to address production order breaches, and that the adjudicator made errors of law and fact in assessing his psychological and social functioning impairments.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the adjudicator provided clear and adequate reasons, no reasonable apprehension of bias was established, and the adjudicator's weighing of the expert evidence and application of the legal test for marked impairment were reasonable and free of error.

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

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in weighing medical evidence, particularly by focusing on inconsistencies in her self-reporting, and failed to properly apply s. 38(8) of the Schedule regarding the insurer's denial letters.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate arguments and re-weigh evidence already considered at the initial hearing.

The Tribunal concluded that the adjudicator made no error of law or fact, nor any breach of procedural fairness, that would warrant reconsideration.