Deborah Anschell

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to the mediation stage.

The applicant failed to participate in the mediation despite repeated requests and did not respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found the case had been abandoned and ordered it dismissed pursuant to Rule 32.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested records of owners, mortgagees, and leases from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent agreed to provide the records at mediation but had delayed production by almost two months due to the property manager's inadvertence.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the delay was equivalent to a refusal without reasonable excuse and ordered the respondent to pay a $250 penalty and $200 in costs for filing fees.

The tribunal declined to order the respondent to provide a written apology letter.

The applicant brought a motion to correct or clarify a previous order that dismissed his application for condominium records.

The applicant argued the previous decision wrongly interpreted evidence and was unfair.

The Tribunal held that Rule 30 of its Rules of Practice only permits corrections of typographical, calculation, or similar minor errors, and does not grant jurisdiction to reconsider substantive findings or weigh evidence anew.

The motion was denied for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a former unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for an order directing the respondent condominium corporation to provide electronic copies of certain records.

During the proceedings, the applicant sold his unit.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant was no longer entitled to obtain records under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the applicant lost standing when he sold his unit, and that a subsequent agency agreement from another owner only authorized examination, not obtaining copies.

The applicant unit owner brought a matter before the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation failed to comply with a settlement agreement regarding a records request.

The applicant sought outstanding invoices related to building maintenance and a penalty for non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had made best efforts to comply, providing the majority of records by the deadline and the remainder shortly after the condominium president returned from vacation.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent had not contravened the settlement agreement and declined to award costs.

The applicant sought accident benefits for psychological assessments and treatments following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her vehicular anxiety and psychological impairments fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

Relying on the evidence of the applicant's family physician and the insurer's independent medical examiners, the arbitrator concluded the applicant's physical injuries had largely resolved and her vehicular anxiety did not constitute a psychiatric condition severe enough to remove her from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG cap had already been reached, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The insurer was awarded its expenses.

The applicant brought a motion to remove the insurer's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because the firm also represented the insurer in the accident benefits claim of her husband (a non-party).

The applicant also sought to exclude a medical report from her husband's file that the insurer intended to use in her arbitration.

The Arbitrator held that the medical report was inadmissible because the husband had not consented to its use in his wife's arbitration, and the insurer's privacy policy and PIPEDA protected his personal information.

However, the Arbitrator declined to remove the insurer's counsel, finding no conflict of interest as the firm had never acted for the applicant or her husband, and there was no risk of prejudice to the insurer.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the insurer.

The insurer argued that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant, who had been an active amateur hockey player and weightlifter, claimed he developed chronic back pain as a result of the accident, which prevented him from continuing his athletic pursuits.

The arbitrator reviewed conflicting medical evidence from orthopaedic surgeons and other experts.

The arbitrator accepted the applicant's evidence and the medical opinions supporting a chronic pain diagnosis, finding that the ongoing sharp back pain constituted an injury beyond the scope of the MIG.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant's injuries do not fall within the Minor Injury Guideline and awarded expenses to the applicant.

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

The insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

At arbitration, the applicant argued his injuries, including a concussion, psychological issues, and chronic pain, removed him from the MIG.

The arbitrator found insufficient evidence of a concussion or psychological impairment but accepted the orthopaedic surgeon's diagnosis of chronic pain, which was sufficient to remove the applicant from the MIG.

The disputed treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary.

The arbitrator declined to order a special award, finding the insurer's reliance on the initial MIG classification and an insurer's examination was not unreasonable.

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

A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine whether the applicant was a party under disability pursuant to Rule 10 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, given her history of bipolar affective disorder and hospital admissions.

The arbitrator found that the medical evidence, including a recent letter from her treating psychiatrist, did not rebut the presumption of capacity.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant had the capacity to instruct her representative and proceed with the dispute resolution process.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After his counsel was removed from the record, the applicant failed to attend two pre-hearings and a preliminary issue hearing, despite receiving proper notice.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant had abandoned his claim and dismissed the application for arbitration.

No order was made with respect to costs.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After his representative was removed from the record due to a loss of communication, the applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing and a subsequent preliminary issue hearing.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had abandoned his claim and dismissed the application for arbitration pursuant to Rule 37.9 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

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

After mediation failed, the applicant applied for arbitration.

The applicant's counsel withdrew from the record due to an inability to obtain instructions.

The applicant subsequently failed to attend a pre-hearing and a preliminary issue hearing, despite receiving proper notice.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had abandoned the proceeding and dismissed the application for arbitration.

No costs were awarded.