Linda P. Lamoureux

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant income replacement benefits (IRBs) until a specified future date at a rate of $184.13 per week.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the Tribunal made a significant error of law by ordering benefits payable to a future date, as entitlement to IRBs is a point-in-time inquiry.

Furthermore, the Tribunal misapprehended the evidence regarding the quantum of the IRBs, mistakenly attributing the applicant's own accountant report to the respondent and failing to provide reasons for its calculation.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to rehear the issue of the appropriate quantum of IRBs.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of two Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions which found his injuries were minor and denied his claims for income replacement and non-earner benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to consider his medical evidence and that he was prejudiced by erroneous information regarding the appeal deadline.

The Executive Chair dismissed the requests, finding the reconsideration was filed on time but that the original decisions clearly demonstrated the adjudicator had considered the applicant's evidence, even if every piece was not explicitly mentioned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and that there was insufficient evidence to vary his income replacement benefit.

The Executive Chair denied the request, finding that the Tribunal did not mischaracterize the issues, did not err in its consideration of the evidence, and that the applicant's proposed new evidence could have reasonably been obtained prior to the original hearing.

The appellant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the Registrar to refuse her registration as a real estate salesperson.

The original decision found that the appellant's past criminal conviction for sexual exploitation of a young person afforded reasonable grounds to believe she would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the Adjudicator did not make a significant error of law or fact in weighing the evidence, assessing credibility, or determining that conditions were not an appropriate alternative to refusal.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments.

The insurer argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and law in assessing the medical evidence and failing to determine the predominant injury.

The Executive Chair denied the request, finding that the hearing adjudicator carefully weighed the evidence and made determinations of fact within their jurisdiction, and did not make any significant error of law or fact that would have led to a different decision.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal order that excluded an audio recording of an insurer's examination from being admitted as evidence at an upcoming hearing.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached natural justice by making the decision without the examiner's reports and erred in law regarding relevance and cross-examination.

The Executive Chair denied the request, finding the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to determine relevance and that credibility could be addressed through oral testimony and cross-examination.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision, arguing the adjudicator acted outside their jurisdiction by making a finding on whether the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The insurer submitted that the MIG was not an issue in dispute, as the applicant had already been removed from the guideline.

The Executive Chair agreed, finding that the MIG issue was not listed in the application, response, or case conference order.

The reconsideration was granted, and the adjudicator's findings regarding the MIG were cancelled.

The Solicitor General requested the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to investigate the Peterborough Police Services Board due to ongoing dysfunction.

The Commission found that the Board's inability to discharge its statutory responsibilities, including failing to prepare a business plan and manage routine business, constituted an emergency.

Pursuant to section 24(1) of the Police Services Act, the Commission issued an interim order appointing an administrator to oversee the Board's functions and ensure compliance with statutory obligations.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant income replacement benefits up to a specific future date.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the adjudicator made an error of law by fixing an end-date for the benefits, which potentially fettered the insurer's ability to adjust the file if the applicant's eligibility changed.

The order was varied to state that the benefits are reinstated from the date they were stopped and are ongoing until no longer owing in accordance with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the Minister of Transportation's downgrade of his commercial driver's licence from Class B to Class G due to his use of inotropic drugs for a heart condition.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the Tribunal made a significant error of fact by concluding the appellant was taking Amiodarone on a daily basis, despite a medical report indicating he had ceased the medication.

A rehearing was ordered on the issue of whether the appellant's prior use of inotropes significantly interferes with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a case conference order that denied an adjournment and refused to add the issue of catastrophic impairment to the hearing.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the adjudicator did not have the respondent's letter responding to the applicant's OCF-19, which constituted new evidence that would have affected the result.

The written hearing was stayed and the case conference was ordered to resume after the completion of the respondent's catastrophic impairment assessments.

The respondent insurance company requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision to proceed with a hybrid/teleconference hearing rather than an in-person hearing.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request, finding that the adjudicator acted within his jurisdiction and did not violate the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness in determining the hearing format.

The Executive Chair of the Licence Appeal Tribunal initiated a reconsideration of a decision that ordered the release of an impounded rental vehicle.

The original decision found the vehicle was 'stolen' because it was driven by an unauthorized person with a suspended licence, contrary to the rental agreement.

On reconsideration, the Executive Chair found the Tribunal made significant errors of law and fact by interpreting 'stolen' to mean use contrary to the owner's instructions, which broadened the term beyond its ordinary meaning.

The order was varied to find the vehicle was not stolen, and the appeal was stayed for mootness as the vehicle had already been released.