D. Stephen Jovanovic

The insured requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that ordered her to repay $17,200 in overpaid income replacement benefits (IRBs) to Unifund.

The insured argued that the Tribunal erred by failing to adjudicate her claim that she was entitled to further IRBs, which should be set off against the overpayment.

The Associate Chair granted the reconsideration in part, finding that the Tribunal made a significant error of law by not considering the insured's arguments and evidence regarding IRB entitlement and set off, which were properly raised in the proceeding.

The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to determine the issue of IRB entitlement and any resulting set off.

The respondent insurer requested reconsideration of a Tribunal order denying its request for the applicant to produce clinical notes and records from 29 doctors seen post-accident.

The Tribunal originally denied the request on the basis of proportionality, assuming most records would be in the hospital file.

On reconsideration, the Tribunal granted the request, noting that relevance was undisputed and that 18 of the 29 physicians' records were not included in the hospital file.

The applicant was ordered to produce the records of those 18 physicians, with the respondent undertaking to pay the associated invoices.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal order finding the claimant entitled to medical benefits for physical rehabilitation and acupuncture.

The insurer argued that the hearing adjudicator made significant errors of law and fact by finding the expenses were incurred and reasonable and necessary, and by allegedly reversing the burden of proof.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the hearing adjudicator properly weighed the evidence, did not reverse the burden of proof, and made findings of fact that were within his discretion.

The Tribunal noted that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-litigate the matter.

The Town of Espanola and the Espanola Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission for consent to abolish the Espanola Police Service and transfer policing responsibilities to the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Commission applied a comparative historical test and found that the OPP's integrated detachment model would continue to provide adequate and effective policing services to the municipality.

The Commission granted consent to the abolition, subject to conditions requiring a finalized agreement with the Solicitor General and the resolution of severance agreements or their referral to arbitration.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision confirming the Registrar's suspension of his driver's licence due to cognitive impairment.

The appellant relied on hospital admission records as new evidence, arguing his confusion was temporary and medication-related.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the new evidence could have been obtained earlier and would not have changed the result, as the discharge summary still indicated a likely worsening dementing illness.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Case Conference decision that directed a preliminary issue—whether the applicant was precluded from proceeding due to failing to attend an insurer's examination—to be heard with the merits of the application.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration, finding that the respondent was denied procedural fairness when its request to determine the preliminary issue first was denied without reasons.

The Tribunal ordered the preliminary issue to be determined on the scheduled hearing date, with the balance of the hearing adjourned pending the decision.

The Corporation of the Municipality of West Nipissing applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission under section 40 of the Police Services Act for consent to abolish the West Nipissing Police Service and contract with the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

The West Nipissing Police Services Board opposed the application and sought judicial review, but the Superior Court encouraged the Commission to proceed.

The Commission found that the municipality has the sole authority to choose the method of delivering police services.

The Commission was satisfied that the OPP proposal would provide adequate and effective police services and that appropriate severance agreements were in place for existing employees.

The Commission granted consent to abolish the municipal police service.

The Town of Amherstburg and the Amherstburg Police Services Board applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission for approval to have Amherstburg's policing services provided by the Windsor Police Service, and for consent to abolish the Amherstburg Police Service.

Despite significant public opposition citing loss of local autonomy, the Commission found that the proposal would maintain and enhance adequate and effective policing services.

The Commission approved the proposal and consented to the abolition of the local police force, subject to conditions regarding severance agreements for affected members.

The Registrar requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed an appeal rather than issuing a requested consent order.

The parties had reached a settlement where the corporate appellant would withdraw its application and the individual appellant would be registered as a salesperson with conditions.

The original Tribunal decision found the settlement fair but dismissed the appeal, reasoning an order was unnecessary.

On reconsideration, the Tribunal found that dismissing the appeal was a significant error of law, as it would allow the Registrar to carry out its original proposal to refuse registration.

The Tribunal varied the order and granted the consent order disposing of the proceeding on the terms of the settlement.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision to revoke its liquor licence.

The revocation was based on findings that the appellant's acting manager assaulted and obstructed a liquor inspector, and that the establishment permitted the removal of liquor and unlawful gambling.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of law and fact.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no significant errors that would have altered the original decision, particularly given the serious public safety concerns raised by the manager's aggressive conduct toward the inspector.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision directing the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The original refusal was based on the appellant's past conduct regarding a disappeared vehicle during his bankruptcy and a false statement on his application.

The appellant alleged numerous errors of fact and law in the Tribunal's decision.

The adjudicator found no significant errors of law or fact that would have likely led to a different decision and dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The appellant police officer appealed her disciplinary convictions on the grounds that the Hearing Officer's private lunches with the prosecutor created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the private lunches did create a reasonable apprehension of bias, the appellant had waived her right to raise the issue because her experienced representative failed to object at the earliest opportunity and instead waited until after the unfavourable decision on the merits was rendered.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions and penalties were confirmed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment and was entitled to attendant care benefits (ACBs) for services provided by his spouse.

The insurer argued the adjudicator erred by admitting opinion evidence on causation from a treating chiropractor who was not qualified as an expert, and by awarding ACBs for care provided by a family member.

The Associate Chair denied the reconsideration, holding that the chiropractor's evidence was admissible as a 'participant expert' under Westerhof, and that the spouse, a trained personal support worker and registered practical nurse, provided the attendant care services in the course of her profession.

The adjudicator's findings that the applicant promised to pay his spouse and required overnight supervision were reasonable and did not constitute significant errors of law or fact.

The appellant police officer pleaded guilty to discreditable conduct and insubordination and received a nine-month demotion based on a joint submission.

He appealed the penalty, alleging ineffective representation by his association representative, and brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission partially granted the motion, allowing the introduction of communications relevant to the ineffective representation claim, but excluding evidence that went to the underlying convictions, as only the penalty was under appeal.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision convicting her of Discreditable Conduct and ordering her resignation or dismissal.

The misconduct arose from an off-duty domestic incident where the appellant held a knife to her throat while holding her child and threatened to drive into a transport truck.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer made numerous errors, including failing to properly consider her mental state and PTSD diagnosis.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police service and that the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the severity of the conduct and the appellant's disciplinary history.

The appellant police officer was demoted for two years following a guilty plea to Discreditable Conduct.

Before the two-year period ended, he was suspended for allegedly reporting for duty with alcohol in his system.

The respondent police service refused to reinstate him to his former rank, treating the suspension as interrupting the demotion period.

The appellant appealed, arguing the refusal to reinstate was discipline imposed without a hearing.

The Commission directed the Chief of Police to hold a hearing under Part V of the Police Services Act to determine whether the appellant failed to meet the conditions for reinstatement, and dismissed the appeal without prejudice to the appellant's right to appeal the future hearing officer's decision.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of misconduct charges against four Toronto Police Service officers involved in his arrest during the 2010 G20 Summit.

The Hearing Officer had found the officers' use of distractionary strikes justified due to the appellant's active resistance.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission reviewed the decision on a reasonableness standard and found no error in the Hearing Officer's conclusions, confirming the dismissal of the charges.

The Commission noted concerns about qualifying a TPS training officer as an expert witness but held it did not affect the outcome as it was not raised as a ground of appeal.

The appellant appealed the penalty of forfeiture of five days' pay imposed on the respondent police officer for discreditable conduct.

The respondent had previously been convicted of assault with a weapon for his actions during the appellant's arrest at the G20 Summit.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in assessing aggravating and mitigating factors, and the intervener argued the Hearing Officer improperly allowed a collateral attack on the criminal conviction.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's penalty decision was reasonable and did not constitute an impermissible collateral attack.

The appellant, a police sergeant and helicopter pilot, appealed his convictions for breach of confidence and discreditable conduct, as well as his penalty of a one-year demotion.

The charges arose after he published a letter in a local newspaper criticizing the OPP's decision to relocate a helicopter unit, arguing it jeopardized public safety.

On appeal, he argued the Hearing Officer erred in denying disclosure, refusing to recuse herself for bias, and rejecting his whistleblower defence.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and agreeing that the whistleblower defence failed because the appellant did not attempt to raise his concerns internally before going to the media.

The convictions and penalty were confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of forfeiture of 80 hours imposed by a Hearing Officer after pleading guilty to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved transporting his family in an OPP vehicle without authorization and being less than forthcoming during the subsequent investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer made an overriding error in principle by accepting a guilty plea based on the appellant driving a short distance, but then using a factual finding that the appellant drove the entire four-hour trip as an aggravating factor to increase the penalty.

The Commission varied the penalty to a forfeiture of 60 hours, finding it more reasonable given the actual basis of the conviction and the mitigating factors, including the appellant's exemplary employment history.