Dawn J. Kershaw

The applicant sought accident benefits following a minor rear-end collision.

The insurer denied treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and cannabis medication on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued his injuries fell outside the MIG due to a concussion, chronic back pain, an annular tear, psychological impairment, and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support these claims, noting steady improvement in the applicant's condition, intervening events causing back pain flare-ups, and surveillance footage showing the applicant skiing and carrying his child.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and is subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, dismissing the claims for additional medical benefits.

The Superintendent proposed to revoke the registration of the appellant private career college under the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005.

The College appealed the proposal.

The Tribunal found that the College breached its registration conditions by failing to maintain a compliance monitor and losing approval to offer its personal support worker program.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the College could no longer be expected to operate in a financially responsible manner, given its inability to pay its compliance monitor, its failure to contribute to the Training Completion Assurance Fund, and its inability to issue required tuition refunds to students.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the College's registration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that reduced the hourly rate for a psychological assessment from $149.61 to $58.19.

The Tribunal had found that the assessment was performed by a social worker acting as a psychometrist, not a psychologist.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no denial of natural justice, no error of law in applying the psychometrist rate from the Professional Services Guideline, and no error of fact.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and limited the cost of a psychological assessment to the remainder of the MIG limit.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in fact by preferring one psychological report over another and erred in law by approving the assessment without removing him from the MIG.

The Vice-Chair denied the request, finding no significant errors of fact or law, as the Tribunal correctly assessed the medical evidence and logically concluded that approving an assessment does not automatically remove an applicant from the MIG.

The applicant's husband fell from his wheelchair while disembarking from a transit van, sustaining a concussion and severe back pain.

Due to the uncontrolled pain from the fall, he refused his life-sustaining dialysis treatments and subsequently died.

The applicant sought death and funeral benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the 'but for' causation test and found that the fall directly caused the uncontrolled pain, which in turn caused the refusal of dialysis and resulting death.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the death and funeral benefits.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her claim for an in-home/attendant care assessment and a chiropractic treatment plan.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of law by ignoring a prior FSCO decision and errors of fact by ignoring evidence regarding her pain reduction, geographic location, and medical practitioners.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the FSCO decision was not binding and that the Tribunal had properly considered and weighed the evidence in determining the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The respondent insurer denied IRBs for a period and reduced the quantum for the post-104 week period, arguing that the applicant's income should be calculated at $0 because he had not filed income tax returns since 2011, relying on section 4(5) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant subsequently filed his tax returns and provided an Employer's Confirmation of Income, he established his entitlement.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay IRBs at the rate of $400.00 per week for both the pre- and post-104 week periods, plus interest on overdue amounts.

The applicants sought reconsideration of two Tribunal decisions that found their accident benefits claims were statute-barred.

The applicants argued the Tribunal erred in applying the four-part test for extending time under section 7 of the LAT Act.

The Vice-Chair found the Tribunal made significant errors of law and fact, particularly in attributing the delay caused by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario's backlog to the applicants, and in its assessment of prejudice to the respondent.

The requests for reconsideration were granted, and the time for filing the appeals was extended.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a $300 costs award made against it for allegedly failing to comply with a Tribunal order regarding the disclosure of surveillance evidence.

The Vice-Chair found that the Tribunal made significant errors of fact, as the respondent had not actually breached any disclosure deadlines set out in the prior orders.

Furthermore, the Tribunal erred in law by applying the incorrect version of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The request for reconsideration was granted and the costs award was reversed.

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

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 funding limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain and a psychological injury, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for several disputed treatment plans for chiropractic care, massage, and various assessments, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed, as the insurer's reliance on its own medical assessments did not constitute unreasonable behaviour.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal order dismissing its motion for the production of the applicant's pre-accident bank records.

The insurer sought the records to investigate a potential material misrepresentation regarding the applicant's residence, which would affect entitlement to income replacement benefits.

The Vice Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and law by concluding the records were only relevant to quantum and by accepting a lawyer's letter as sufficient evidence of 'best efforts' to obtain the closed account records.

The applicant was ordered to make written inquiries to the bank to obtain the records.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on black ice immediately after parking and exiting his vehicle at a hospital.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the two-part purpose and causation test.

While the Tribunal found that parking the vehicle satisfied the purpose test, it concluded that the black ice was an intervening cause.

Therefore, the use or operation of the vehicle was not a direct cause of the applicant's injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought a non-earner benefit, the cost of a chronic pain assessment, and a medical benefit for chiropractic treatment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to engage in many pre-accident activities, and therefore denied the non-earner benefit.

The Tribunal also denied the cost of the chronic pain assessment, finding it was not reasonable and necessary as it would not add new information to the file.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding balance for the chiropractic treatment plan, noting that the respondent's own assessor recommended continued facility-based active treatment.

The appellants appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The corporate appellant was registered only as a wholesale dealer, but the individual appellant admitted to selling approximately 70 vehicles to retail customers, violating the conditions of registration.

Despite multiple warnings from inspectors and the Registrar, the appellants continued to sell retail, citing financial difficulties.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not carry on business in accordance with the law, honesty, and integrity, and that they could not be expected to be financially responsible.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim regarding the asymmetrical construction of their new home's cathedral ceiling.

The appellants argued the 4-inch discrepancy in the ceiling's starting points was an aesthetic defect.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that aesthetics alone do not constitute a breach of the warranty that a home is constructed in a workmanlike manner, absent evidence that the construction fell below industry standards.

The Tribunal also noted the appellants provided no evidence of damages.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal found the applicant credible and preferred the evidence of her medical experts, concluding that her chronic pain and psychological impairments prevented her from returning to work.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay IRBs of $400 per week from October 4, 2016, ongoing, plus interest.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to refuse to issue a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS) licence and to refuse to register the individual appellant as an MVI mechanic.

The Tribunal found that while the appellants had rectified equipment deficiencies, the individual appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be operated with honesty and integrity.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the individual appellant lacked current competence regarding safety standards.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse the licence and registration.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that permitted the applicant's appeal for income replacement benefits to proceed despite being filed six days after the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal had applied section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the time.

On reconsideration, the Vice-Chair found no error of law or fact in the original decision, confirming that section 7 of the LAT Act prevails over the mandatory limitation period in section 56 of the SABS, and that the Tribunal properly applied the four-factor test for extending time.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his application for a groom's licence under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015.

The Registrar based its refusal on the appellant's prior U.S. conviction for attempted enticement of a minor and his failure to disclose a 2007 driving conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the non-disclosure was an unintentional oversight and that the appellant's successful rehabilitation, including voluntary completion of a sex offender program and release on full parole without conditions, demonstrated he would act with honesty, integrity, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal set aside the proposal and ordered the Registrar to issue the licence, allowing parties to make submissions on potential conditions.

The appellants appealed the Registrar's proposals to refuse the registration of their motor vehicle dealership and revoke their registrations as salespersons.

The Registrar alleged that the appellants' past conduct, including involvement in odometer rollbacks, obtaining fraudulent replacement ownerships for stolen vehicles, and breaching registration conditions, demonstrated they would not carry on business in accordance with the law, integrity, and honesty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellants' evidence lacked credibility and that their past conduct established reasonable grounds to believe they would not act with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposals to refuse and revoke the registrations.