D. Stephen Jovanovic

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant entitled to payment for two chiropractic treatment plans.

The original adjudicator had approved the plans on the basis that it was reasonable and necessary for the applicant to choose her modality of treatment.

On reconsideration, the Tribunal found this was a significant error of law, as the correct test is whether the services themselves are reasonable and necessary, supported by objective medical evidence.

The original decision regarding the chiropractic plans was cancelled and a new written hearing was ordered.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his application for attendant care and housekeeping benefits as statute-barred.

The applicant argued the insurer's denial letter was ambiguous, that subsequent payments negated the denial, and raised Charter and discoverability arguments.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the adjudicator made no significant errors of law.

The denial letter was clear and unequivocal, subsequent payments after the limitation period expired did not revive the claim, and the adjudicator properly declined the Charter argument due to lack of required notice.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his claim for non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator breached procedural fairness, misinterpreted section 36 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule regarding the insurer's notice of denial, and erred in applying the test for non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness, the insurer had provided the required notice, and the adjudicator made no significant legal error in concluding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant a $10,000 death benefit following the death of her 48-year-old son in a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator had found the deceased was principally dependent on the applicant for care.

On reconsideration, the Associate Chair found the adjudicator made significant factual errors regarding the level of care and support the applicant provided, noting the deceased lived independently for 27 years and managed most of his own needs.

The reconsideration was allowed, the original decision was cancelled, and a new hearing was ordered to properly assess financial and care dependency.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of an adjudicator's order directing that the issue of payment for an economic loss report proceed by way of a written hearing rather than a hybrid hearing.

The respondent argued that an oral hearing was necessary to cross-examine the applicant's employer, who was also the applicant's lawyer, regarding the decision to submit an accounting report instead of an OCF-2.

The Associate Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the adjudicator appropriately applied the Tribunal's rules promoting efficient and proportional resolution and did not violate the rules of procedural fairness.

The Registrar requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decisions which suspended, rather than revoked, the appellants' liquor licences for breaching conditions restricting the involvement of the owner's son.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal misapprehended the 'reasonable grounds for belief' test under s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act and made significant errors of law and fact.

The Associate Chair found no significant errors of law or fact in the Tribunal's conclusion that the past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on with integrity and honesty.

The reconsideration request was dismissed and the previous decisions were confirmed.

The appellant police officer was found guilty of disciplinary offences and ordered dismissed.

He appealed to the Commission.

After the appeal was heard but before a decision was rendered, the appellant retired.

The Commission held that pursuant to section 90(1) of the Police Services Act, it lacks jurisdiction to continue with an appeal or render a decision once an appellant is no longer a police officer.

The appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding that she was not entitled to case management services under s. 17(1)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued that purchasing the optional catastrophic impairment benefit under s. 28(1)5 was sufficient to trigger entitlement, even without a catastrophic impairment designation.

The Associate Chair confirmed the Tribunal's decision, applying principles of statutory interpretation to conclude that the optional benefit is only 'available' if the insured person actually sustains a catastrophic impairment.

The proposed appellant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision staying Police Services Act misconduct charges against two officers due to delay.

The Hearing Officer had found the delay amounted to an abuse of process under the Blencoe framework.

The Commission granted leave to appeal, finding that the matter raised issues of significant importance to the policing profession and the community, particularly regarding the role of a public complainant's interests in a Blencoe analysis and the impact of parallel criminal proceedings on administrative delay.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he sustained predominantly minor injuries and was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to address his argument regarding the insurer's non-compliance with notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Associate Chair allowed the reconsideration request, finding that the Tribunal's failure to address the live and consequential issue of the sufficiency of the insurer's notices amounted to a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The matter was ordered to be reheard in writing by a different adjudicator.

The Registrar requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that directed the Registrar not to carry out a proposal to refuse the appellant's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal applied the wrong standard of proof, improperly relied on an email, and failed to follow the Divisional Court's directions regarding the appellant's past criminal charges and outstanding warrant.

The Associate Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that even if the standard of proof was misstated, the Tribunal would not likely have reached a different decision, and that the Tribunal properly considered the evidence and the Divisional Court's directions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for income replacement benefits and medical benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator displayed an apprehension of bias, improperly weighed medical evidence, and failed to apply the correct legal tests.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and concluding that the adjudicator made no significant errors of law or fact.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's attempt to introduce new evidence that could have been obtained prior to the original hearing.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt for neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from his failure to properly investigate a wellness check on two vulnerable women, one of whom was later found deceased in their home.

The officer had driven by the residence but did not exit his vehicle or knock on the door, assuming the house was abandoned.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the officer failed in his common law duty to protect life and safety and lacked a lawful excuse for his lack of diligence.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that his injuries from a 2015 motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by applying the 'but for' test for causation instead of the 'material contribution' test, and by improperly weighing the medical evidence, particularly given an intervening second accident.

The Associate Chair waived the late filing of the reconsideration request but dismissed it on the merits, finding no error of law or fact in the original decision's application of the 'but for' test or its assessment of the medical evidence.

The proposed appellant sought leave to appeal a Hearing Officer's decision staying Police Services Act charges against the respondent officers.

The respondent officers brought a motion to dismiss the request for leave to appeal, arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the proposed appellant failed to serve the Solicitor General and the Independent Police Review Director within the 30-day statutory period.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that under section 87 of the Police Services Act and the Commission's rules, service on statutory interveners is not required until after leave to appeal has been granted.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct and insubordination arising from an off-duty incident at a Human Rights Tribunal hearing, where he loudly accused superior officers of being racists.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the objective test for discreditable conduct was met and that off-duty conduct could constitute insubordination under the Police Services Act where there is a connection to the reputation of the police force.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours was confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering her to resign or face termination after she pleaded guilty to four counts of misconduct, including deceit and neglect of duty.

The misconduct involved forging supervisors' signatures on reports, lying about working penalty hours, and failing to attend court.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in failing to find a nexus between her misconduct and her psychological disabilities, which included the impact of a miscarriage and the deaths of loved ones.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded there was no connection between the disabilities and the deceitful conduct, and properly applied the dispositional factors in determining that the appellant's usefulness as a police officer had been annulled.

The Corporation of the Township of North Huron and the North Huron Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission for consent to abolish the Wingham Police Service under section 40 of the Police Services Act.

The municipality intended to enter into a contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) for the provision of police services.

The Commission found that the OPP proposal would provide adequate and effective police services and that appropriate severance agreements were in place for existing police service members.

The Commission granted consent to abolish the Wingham Police Service.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt and a penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer for discreditable conduct, deceit, and insubordination arising from an unlawful and intrusive search of a female detainee.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in credibility assessments, was biased, improperly denied an adjournment, and imposed an unfit penalty.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the credibility findings, no evidence of bias, and that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the seriousness of the misconduct, which also resulted in a criminal conviction for sexual assault.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of deceit under the Police Services Act Code of Conduct and demoting him to third-class constable.

The deceit charge arose from the appellant recording on three Provincial Offence Notices that he had used a LIDAR device to measure speed, when he had actually used RADAR or paced the vehicles.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the appellant intended to deceive was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

However, the Commission varied the penalty, finding the Hearing Officer erred in principle by treating the appellant's fabricated testimony as an aggravating factor and by penalizing him for an uncharged intent to mislead the courts.

The penalty was varied to a demotion to second-class constable for six months, and to first-class constable thereafter.