Linda P. Lamoureux

The Solicitor General requested the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to investigate allegations of misconduct by senior members of the Durham Regional Police Service and the Board's oversight capacity.

Following a preliminary review, the Commission found a profound crisis of confidence, widespread fear of retaliatory discipline, and a poisoned work environment.

Determining that this crisis constituted an emergency that could hamper the investigation and negatively affect policing, the Executive Chair ordered the appointment of an Administrator under sections 23(1) and 24(1) of the Police Services Act to oversee promotions, hiring, and internal disciplinary processes.

The Solicitor General requested the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to investigate allegations of misconduct by senior members of the Durham Regional Police Service and the oversight provided by the Durham Regional Police Services Board.

Following a preliminary review, the Commission found a crisis of confidence within the Service, characterized by allegations of cronyism, workplace harassment, and retaliatory discipline.

Concluding that this crisis constituted an emergency that could negatively affect policing and hamper the investigation, the Executive Chair ordered a formal investigation and appointed an Administrator to oversee promotions, internal disciplinary processes, and secondary activity applications.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission issued an emergency order appointing an administrator to oversee the Thunder Bay Police Services Board.

Following a request from First Nations leaders, the Commission investigated the Board's failure to address systemic racism and the Indigenous community's concerns regarding police services.

The Executive Chair found that the Board failed to provide administrative guidance and lost the capacity to fulfill its public oversight role, constituting an emergency.

The order appoints Thomas J. Lockwood, Q.C. as Administrator for a one-year term to preside over Board meetings, ensure members receive training, and establish a suitable policy framework.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that the insurer, Aviva, provided adequate reasons for denying two treatment plans and requesting an insurer's examination.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that Aviva's stated reason—that it was unable to determine if the recommendations were reasonably required and that the treatment did not appear consistent with the diagnosis—was inadequate under s. 38(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer failed to provide meaningful details based on the applicant's medical file.

Consequently, the Tribunal's previous order was cancelled and the mandatory consequences under s. 38(11)2 applied.

The appellant requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal motion decision that found the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the appellant's arguments regarding the Registrar's conduct during settlement negotiations.

The appellant had argued that the Registrar's insistence on an 'all-or-nothing' settlement for two alleged liquor licence violations was an abuse of process and violated the Charter.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration request, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Registrar's conduct when determining whether to confirm or set aside a monetary penalty under the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act.

The Tribunal's order was varied to allow the appellant to make written submissions on these issues if the regulatory violations are proven at the hearing.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal direction that required the parties to schedule a case conference to raise additional issues, rather than resuming a previously adjourned motion hearing.

The applicant argued this denied her natural justice and procedural fairness by delaying her request for additional cross-examinations.

The Executive Chair denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant had ample opportunity to request a case conference and that the additional cross-examinations were not before the Tribunal during the original motion hearing.

The Executive Chair noted the applicant's repeated attempts to circumvent procedure bordered on abuse of process.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his chronic pain syndrome was a 'minor injury' subject to the $3,500 monetary cap under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the Tribunal erred in its statutory interpretation.

Applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the Executive Chair concluded that chronic pain is not included in the definition of 'minor injury' or 'clinically associated sequelae', and that the minor injury framework's 12-week treatment program is incompatible with chronic pain.

The applicant was awarded the previously denied medical benefits.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for accident benefits at the Michigan Personal Injury Protection level.

On reconsideration, the applicant raised a new argument that he should receive benefits under his spouse's policy with a different insurer, effectively disputing priority.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request, holding that a reconsideration is not an avenue for advancing new arguments that could have been made earlier, and that the time limit to dispute priority between insurers had expired.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found the applicant entitled to Non-Earner Benefits (NEBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued that the Tribunal failed to consider evidence of the applicant's ability to participate in pre-accident activities, improperly focused on only two areas of her life, and ignored her pre-existing psychological trauma.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal properly applied the legal test, weighed the evidence, and provided sufficient reasons for its conclusion that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The respondent, G.P., requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal order requiring him to repay income replacement benefits to his insurer, Aviva.

Aviva had voided G.P.'s policy because he failed to disclose that his partner, who had a poor driving record, had moved in with him.

G.P. sought to introduce new documents to show he did not intentionally withhold this information.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request, finding that the documents could have been adduced at the original hearing and, even if admitted, would not have changed the outcome.

Aviva Insurance Canada requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that N.F.'s application for accident benefits was valid despite missing a police report.

Aviva argued that the application was incomplete and therefore barred.

The Executive Chair dismissed this argument, finding that under section 32(7) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, an application does not need to be perfectly complete to trigger an insurer's obligation to respond, provided it is functionally adequate.

The Tribunal's finding that Aviva was precluded from relying on the Minor Injury Guideline due to improper denial notices was upheld.

However, the Tribunal's order was varied to explicitly dismiss N.F.'s claim for a non-earner benefit due to a lack of evidence.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing her application for accident benefits.

The insurer had denied two Treatment and Assessment Plans and requested insurer examinations, providing only general statements that the medical documentation did not support the need for treatment.

The Executive Chair found that the insurer failed to satisfy the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, as it did not provide specific medical reasons based on the applicant's file.

Consequently, under s. 38(11)2, the insurer was ordered to pay for the disputed benefits.

The request for a special award was denied.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded the insured physiotherapy services, orthopaedic and psychiatric assessments, and a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The Executive Chair found no significant error of law in the adjudicator's determination that the treatment plans and assessments were reasonable and necessary for managing the insured's chronic pain.

However, the Executive Chair allowed the reconsideration regarding the s. 10 award, finding that the adjudicator erred by conflating the reasonableness of the treatment plans with the unreasonableness of the insurer's conduct.

The award was overturned as there was no evidence the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claim for statutory accident benefits.

He argued the Tribunal made a significant error of fact and violated procedural fairness by failing to explicitly refer to or consider certain medical evidence submitted prior to the hearing.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal is not required to explicitly refer to every piece of evidence in its reasons, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate how the omitted documents were relevant to the benefits at issue.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that required her to attend an in-person insurer examination (IE) before advancing her application for a psychological assessment.

The applicant argued the IE should be a paper review and that the Tribunal misapplied case law.

The Executive Chair found no error, holding that the insurer's request for an in-person IE was reasonable under s. 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and that the insured cannot dictate the identity of the IE examiner.

The request for reconsideration was denied, and the application was adjourned for 60 days to allow the IE to take place.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his application for accident benefits due to his failure to attend multiple insurer's examinations (IEs).

On reconsideration, the applicant argued for the first time that the bar under s. 55(1)2 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule should only apply to the specific benefits for which the IEs were requested, and not to his claim for attendant care benefits.

The Executive Chair denied the request for reconsideration, holding that the Tribunal's reconsideration process is not an avenue for advancing new arguments that could have been made at the initial hearing.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claim for statutory accident benefits related to chronic pain.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by failing to request complete copies of the OCF-18 treatment plans, which were central to the dispute.

Furthermore, the Tribunal erred in its evaluation of the medical evidence by inappropriately requiring the applicant's medical reports to explicitly reference the proposed treatment plans and by failing to consider the limits of the insurer's examination reports.

The matter was ordered to be reheard.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for statutory accident benefits as time-barred.

The applicant argued that the two-year limitation period did not start to run until she was deemed catastrophically impaired and that the doctrine of discoverability applied.

The Executive Chair denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the request was filed late without an acceptable excuse.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish any significant error of law or fact in the Tribunal's original decision regarding the limitation period, the doctrine of discoverability, or the refusal to allow an expert witness.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that largely dismissed his claim for compensation regarding alleged defects in a new home.

The appellant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by refusing additional evidence and made errors of fact by omitting certain witness testimony from its reasons.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request, finding that the adjudicator had admitted all non-duplicative evidence and that the Tribunal's reasons were not required to exhaustively recount all witness testimony.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that his injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), thereby capping his accident benefits at $3,500.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated natural justice and erred in law by preferring the insurer's psychological report, refusing to take judicial notice of changes in the DSM regarding chronic pain, and failing to properly consider his physical functional limitations and pre-existing injuries.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no bias in the Tribunal's preference for the more recent psychological report and no error in requiring evidentiary proof rather than taking judicial notice of complex medical diagnoses.

The Chair also upheld the Tribunal's findings that the applicant failed to prove his physical limitations and pre-existing conditions exempted him from the MIG.