Eleanor White

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

After requesting to move the file to the tribunal decision stage, the applicant failed to pay the required fee by the deadline.

The tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking video recordings and transcripts of board meeting minutes.

The tribunal member brought a motion to dismiss the case at the mediation stage under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The tribunal found that the requested records were not prescribed by the Condominium Act, belonged to a contracted note-taking service, and that the respondent had already provided the approved minutes.

The application was dismissed as the issues were deemed so minor that it would be unfair to require the respondent to proceed.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal after the respondent condominium corporation denied certain requests for records relating to site work on the common elements.

During the mediation stage, the tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, finding that the respondent's denials were reasonable because the requested items were either ambiguous or did not exist.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent had discharged its duty under the Condominium Act and dismissed the application without proceeding to a full hearing.

The applicants filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal that proceeded to mediation.

After mediation failed to result in a settlement, the primary applicant was given the opportunity to move the matter to a tribunal decision.

The applicant failed to pay the required fee to advance the case within the 15-day period.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed under Rule 43.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicants filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to Stage 2 mediation.

The applicants subsequently informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against a unit owner regarding a dog in the unit, which allegedly violated the condominium's rules.

During the proceedings, it was discovered that the named respondent owner had been deceased for nine years and the unit was occupied by a tenant who had not been properly added as an intervenor.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 4 of its Rules of Practice, directing the applicant to confirm the current owners and properly add the tenant as a party before refiling.

The applicant condominium owner requested an unredacted copy of a contract between the condominium corporation and a plumbing contractor for a Kitec piping replacement project, including suite-type designs.

The respondent corporation provided a heavily redacted contract, incorrectly relying on section 55(4)(c) of the Condominium Act, 1998, claiming the suite-type designs related to specific units.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the redactions were improper as suite-types represent multiple units and do not identify specific owners.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the unredacted contract and awarded a $500 penalty plus $200 in costs against the respondent for effectively refusing the records without reasonable excuse.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against a unit owner for harassing staff and management and for failing to comply with a new pet rule regarding building entry and exit.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's pattern of abusive emails constituted an annoyance and disruption under the Condominium Act regulations, violating the corporation's harassment rule.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease all abusive communications, comply with the pet rule, and pay $1,200 in costs.

The applicant condominium corporation filed an application against the respondent unit owner for breaching the corporation's non-smoking rule and creating a nuisance through smoke and odour migration.

The respondent initially failed to participate but later joined the written hearing, claiming she had ceased smoking on the grounds.

The Tribunal found that the respondent and her guests breached the non-smoking rule and section 117(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease smoking or vaping in her unit and on the common elements, and awarded the applicant its pre-tribunal enforcement costs, filing fees, and a portion of its legal costs.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal to obtain specific records from the respondent condominium corporation.

During the mediation stage, the applicant sold her unit.

The Tribunal found that under section 55(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998, the applicant lost her entitlement to the records and standing in the process upon the sale of the unit.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits and the cost of examinations from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the maximum funding limit had been exhausted.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain that would exclude her from the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic treatment and a psychological assessment were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for physiotherapy and chiropractic treatments following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's initial notices of denial for the first two treatment plans failed to provide adequate medical and other reasons as required by s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Consequently, under s. 38(11), the insurer was ordered to pay for treatments incurred during the period of non-compliance.

However, the Tribunal concluded that none of the treatment plans were substantively reasonable and necessary, as the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery for his accident-related soft tissue injuries and his ongoing complaints were related to pre-existing conditions.

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

The insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing she should be excluded from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition or a psychological impairment resulting from the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the application for benefits and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered whether treatment plans for chiropractic care and a chronic pain assessment were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found the chiropractic treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary due to minimal improvement and unchanging symptoms.

However, the Tribunal approved the chronic pain assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary given the applicant's persistent pain and the lack of success with traditional therapy.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied two treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of pre-existing conditions, psychological impairment, or chronic pain that would warrant exclusion from the MIG.

The Tribunal denied the $3,948.91 treatment plan as not reasonable and necessary, but partially approved the $1,315.02 treatment plan in the amount of $509.26 for home exercise equipment and instruction, as recommended by the insurer's own assessor.

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

The insurer denied the plans based on insurer's examinations which concluded the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been removed from the MIG due to a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal held that the first treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy was reasonable and necessary given the applicant's ongoing physical pain and its relevance to her psychological impairment.

However, the second treatment plan for laser and shock wave therapies was denied as the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish it was reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for dispute resolution.

The Tribunal found that while the initial physical injuries were predominantly minor, the applicant subsequently developed chronic pain with accompanying psychological impairment, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded that the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services were reasonable and necessary, and ordered the respondent to pay the benefits with interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including medical benefits and Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs).

The insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and stopped IRBs based on insurer examinations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's median nerve neuropathy removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved one treatment plan for physiotherapy and braces but denied others for lack of supporting evidence.

The Tribunal also ordered the reinstatement of IRBs up to the two-year anniversary of the accident, finding the applicant was substantially unable to perform his pre-accident employment as a warehouse worker and driver, and awarded interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer paid for treatment up to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) but denied further funding for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that there was no compelling evidence of a psychological injury to warrant removing the applicant from the MIG.

The claims for additional benefits, interest, a special award, and costs were dismissed.