Environmental appeals dismissed and Work Order amended following successful mediation and installation of a fill cap.
The appellants appealed a Work Order and an Implementation Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change regarding the deposit of contaminated soil.
Following Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement requiring the installation of a fill cap.
Upon confirmation that the fill cap was installed, the parties jointly requested the Tribunal to amend the Work Order by revoking Work Item No. 1 and to dismiss the appeals.
The Tribunal found the settlement to be in the public interest, amended the Work Order, and dismissed the appeals.
Leave to appeal environmental compliance approval for asphalt plant dismissed due to lack of expert evidence.
The applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hot mix asphalt plant and aggregate depot.
The applicant raised concerns regarding noise, air emissions, and the facility's location, but failed to provide expert evidence to contradict the Ministry's engineers.
The Tribunal found the applicant had standing but dismissed the application for leave to appeal, concluding the applicant did not meet the two-part test under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.
Tribunal conditionally approves settlement agreement requiring appellants to implement a Risk Management Plan for contaminated soil.
The appellants appealed a Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change order requiring them to assess and remediate contaminated soil deposited at a former rail line property.
Following Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement where the appellants agreed to implement a Risk Management Plan, including capping the soil and ongoing monitoring.
The parties requested provisional approval of the settlement and the withdrawal of one work item from the original order.
The Tribunal conditionally accepted the settlement agreement, finding it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and the public interest, pending confirmation of the fill cap installation.
Appeal of wind farm approval dismissed as appellant failed to prove serious harm to health or environment.
The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) issued for the Gunn's Hill Wind Farm, arguing the project would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.
The appellant relied primarily on lay witnesses expressing concerns about noise, shadow flicker, aviation safety, and impacts on species at risk, supported by one expert whose evidence was found insufficient.
The Tribunal found the appellant failed to meet its onus under the Environmental Protection Act, as the evidence amounted only to expressions of concern and was contradicted by the respondents' extensive expert evidence.
The Tribunal also dismissed the approval holder's mid-hearing non-suit motion to dismiss the appeal for failing to establish a prima facie case, noting a lack of submissions on the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the procedural fairness of such a motion in the public interest context of REA appeals.
The appeal was dismissed and the REA confirmed.
Appeal of wind turbine Renewable Energy Approval dismissed for failing to prove serious harm to health or environment.
The Appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) issued for a 5-turbine wind facility, arguing it would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, and that the REA process violated section 7 of the Charter.
The Tribunal reviewed extensive expert evidence on wind turbine noise, infrasound, and health impacts, concluding the Appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the project would cause serious harm to human health.
The Tribunal also found no Charter violation due to the lack of an evidentiary foundation for serious physical or psychological harm.
Finally, the Tribunal rejected the environmental claims, finding the project would not cause serious and irreversible harm to bird species at risk or their habitat.
The appeal was dismissed.
Presenter status granted to Township of Norwich and procedural directions issued for wind farm appeal.
The Environmental Review Tribunal held a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for the Gunn's Hill Wind Farm.
The Tribunal granted presenter status to the Township of Norwich on consent of the parties.
The Tribunal also issued detailed procedural directions for the main hearing, including deadlines for witness statements, expert qualifications, and final submissions.
Insured precluded from proceeding with arbitration after signing an enforceable full and final release.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently signed a full and final release settling her claims for statutory accident benefits for $16,750.
She later sought to proceed with arbitration, arguing the settlement was unenforceable due to a clerical error regarding the accident date, inadequate disclosure of the commuted value of benefits under the Settlement Regulation, and mistaken assumptions.
The Arbitrator held that the clerical error was subject to rectification, the applicant failed to prove the settlement was improvident or based on a mistaken assumption, and the insurer's disclosure statement strictly complied with the Settlement Regulation by providing the commuted value based on maximum policy limits.
The request to proceed with arbitration was denied.
Insurer ordered to pay ongoing caregiver benefits as applicant suffered substantial inability to perform caregiving activities.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.
The insurer terminated her weekly caregiver benefits after 104 weeks, asserting she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.
The applicant argued she suffered a substantial inability to engage in her pre-accident caregiving activities for her adult son, who had a severe brain injury.
The arbitrator found that the applicant's physical limitations, including osteoarthritis and restricted mobility, prevented her from meaningfully engaging in her pre-accident caregiving activities.
The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay ongoing weekly caregiver benefits and interest, but denied the claim for a special award.
Salary continued by family business during disability treated as a loan, not deductible employment income.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed income replacement benefits (IRBs).
The insurer denied IRBs on the basis that the applicant continued to receive her full salary from her employer, a closely-held corporation in which she and her husband were majority shareholders.
The arbitrator found that the payments made while the applicant was completely unable to work were a loan, not employment income, and therefore not deductible from IRBs.
However, the full salary paid during periods when she returned to work part-time was deductible as post-accident employment income, as her work was commercially productive.
The arbitrator also determined that the applicant was substantially disabled for specific periods, but not continuously, relying on independent medical and functional assessments over her subjective reports of pain.
Applicant permitted to withdraw arbitration to pursue relief from forfeiture in court; no expenses awarded.
The applicant sought to withdraw her application for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario to pursue a civil action.
The insurer had raised a defence under s. 30(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, alleging the applicant intentionally failed to notify it of a material change in risk.
The applicant argued she needed to seek relief from forfeiture under s. 129 of the Insurance Act, a remedy outside the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
The arbitrator granted permission to withdraw, noting the jurisdictional issue regarding relief from forfeiture was arguable and better suited for a court.
Both parties' requests for expenses were denied, as the insurer's late raising of the exclusion defence contributed to the unproductive arbitration process, and the applicant's decision to seek relief from forfeiture was reasonable.
Arbitration order corrected to fix a typographical error in a date.
The arbitrator issued a decision correction to amend a typographical error in the arbitration order dated April 19, 1999.
The start date for a 24-week period was corrected from April 2, 1995, to April 26, 1996.
Applicant awarded 24 weeks of income replacement benefits for soft tissue injuries exacerbating pre-existing conditions.
The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and applied for weekly income replacement benefits, which the insurer denied.
The applicant had a significant pre-existing history of back and arm injuries.
The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered soft tissue injuries in the accident that temporarily disabled him from his employment as a truck driver.
However, due to the severity of his pre-existing conditions and the lack of evidence showing long-term exacerbation caused by the accident, the arbitrator concluded the applicant returned to his pre-accident status within 24 weeks.
The applicant was awarded weekly income replacement benefits for 24 weeks, plus interest.
Private disability benefits with fixed monthly amounts are not deductible from statutory accident benefits.
The insurer deducted $1,200 per month that the applicant received from a private disability policy with Great West Life, arguing it was a payment for loss of income under an income continuation plan pursuant to section 75(1)1 of the Schedule.
The arbitrator applied the reasoning from Cugliari v. White and found that the Great West Life policy was primarily a policy to compensate for general disability, not to insure a continuation of income, because the benefit amount was fixed and not dependent on employment at the time of disability.
The deduction was not permitted.
The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's position was not unreasonable.
Limitation period for disputing benefit termination does not commence until insurer receives requested DAC report.
The insurer terminated her weekly caregiver benefits.
The applicant requested a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) assessment.
The insurer argued that the two-year limitation period to apply for mediation commenced when it first gave notice of termination.
The arbitrator held that where an insured person elects a DAC assessment under section 64 of the Schedule, the limitation period under section 72 does not commence until the insurer receives the DAC report.
Therefore, the applicant's claim was not statute-barred.