Lindsay Lake

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond the 104-week post-accident mark, claiming he was completely unable to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to disclose his pre-accident employment as a National Sales Manager to the vocational assessor.

Furthermore, medical and surveillance evidence demonstrated that the applicant retained the physical and psychological capacity to perform sedentary work similar to his undisclosed previous role.

The application for IRBs and a claim for an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, or chronic pain.

The medical evidence, including insurer's examinations, demonstrated that the applicant had functional abilities to complete most activities of daily living.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was filed outside the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denials were clear and unequivocal, and the application was filed more than two years after the denials.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding her entitlement to statutory accident benefits.

She argued the adjudicator made errors of law and fact concerning several treatment plans and a claim for an award under Regulation 664.

The adjudicator found a calculation error regarding a December 24, 2018 treatment plan for psychological services, as the insurer had partially approved an amount greater than the penalty for non-compliance with section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The decision was amended to reflect the correct entitlement amounts for communication, treatment planning, and a progress report.

The remainder of the reconsideration request was dismissed, as the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case or raise new arguments not presented at the initial hearing.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and funding for a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of her education, training, and experience to meet the post-104-week test for IRBs.

The adjudicator also denied the unapproved portion of the treatment plan, as the applicant provided no evidence to rebut the respondent's psychological assessment report.

The applicant's late motion to convert the written hearing to a videoconference was denied, as was the respondent's request for costs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, massage therapy, and a chiropractic assessment following two motor vehicle accidents.

The adjudicator dismissed the claim for physiotherapy because the expenses were incurred before a treatment plan was submitted, contrary to section 38(2) of the Schedule.

The claim for massage therapy and a chiropractic assessment was also dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, with medical evidence suggesting a home exercise program was sufficient.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) after the insurer terminated them.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a self-employed painter and contractor, suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment within 104 weeks of the accident, primarily due to a specific phobia of driving.

For the post-104-week period, the Tribunal found the applicant was completely unable to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, due to a combination of physical and psychological impairments caused by the accident.

The applicant was awarded ongoing IRBs and interest, but his claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the removal of over 200 dogs from their dog sledding business properties by Animal Welfare Services.

The dogs were removed following non-compliance with previous orders regarding tether lengths and dog house conditions.

The Board found that while some puppies were not in distress and must be returned immediately, the majority of the dogs were in distress due to inadequate tether lengths, lack of insulation, and poor state of repair of their shelters.

The Board ordered the return of the remaining dogs subject to the appellants achieving compliance with specific standards of care, including three-metre tethers and insulated dog houses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought non-earner benefits (NEBs) from the respondent insurer.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant was statute-barred for failing to submit a 'completed' OCF-3 Disability Certificate, as the submitted form indicated she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal found the OCF-3 was complete and the applicant was not statute-barred.

However, on the substantive issue, the Tribunal compared the applicant's pre- and post-accident activities and found she failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting significant pre-existing physical and psychological limitations.

The claims for NEBs, an award, interest, and costs were dismissed.

The appellants run a dog sledding business from which over 200 dogs were removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The appellants brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs or a stay, based on the respondent's redaction of boarding facility and veterinarian information from disclosure on the grounds of public interest litigation privilege.

The Board found the redacted information was not protected by privilege, noting it had been disclosed in previous cases.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide the unredacted information to the appellants' counsel, subject to an undertaking not to release it to anyone else, including the appellants.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) brought motions to strike certain grounds of appeal raised by the appellants regarding the removal of over 200 dogs.

The CAWI sought to strike grounds relating to the conduct of inspectors during the removal and alleged Charter violations, arguing the Animal Care Review Board lacks jurisdiction over these matters.

The Board granted the motion to strike the grounds relating to inspector conduct, finding it has no jurisdiction to oversee inspector conduct under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board also determined it is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter and struck the appellants' Charter arguments.

However, the Board dismissed the CAWI's request to preclude the appellants from calling evidence on issues from previous proceedings, finding that res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply because the issues in dispute were not identical.

The appellants, operators of a dog sledding and horse-riding business, appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's removal of over 200 dogs from their properties.

The appellants brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs and dismissal of the proceedings, or alternatively an interim stay, alleging untimely and incomplete disclosure by the respondent.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence of outstanding disclosure and concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice to their ability to make full answer and defence.

The appellants, operators of a dog sledding business, brought a motion seeking the return of over 200 dogs removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector or a stay of the removal orders.

They argued the search warrants leading to the removal were based on misleading Information to Obtain (ITOs).

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding it constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Ontario Court of Justice, which issued the warrants.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, had over 200 dogs removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

They brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs or a stay of the removal orders, arguing that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the Animal Care Review Board filed a factum in a related judicial review proceeding before the Divisional Court.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the Board's factum did not demonstrate aggressive partisanship and that the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias applies to the individual decision-maker, not the entire tribunal.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found the insured entitled to two treatment plans due to the insurer's non-compliant denial notices under sections 38(8) and 38(9) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by citing unsubmitted case law, erred by denying the opportunity to cure the defective notices, and misapplied section 38(11).

The adjudicator dismissed the procedural fairness and notice arguments but granted the reconsideration in part to clarify that the treatment plans are payable only after an invoice is submitted.

The insurer's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought entitlement to four treatment plans for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment plans for driving instructor travel time, physiotherapy, and chiropractic services, noting a lack of compelling contemporaneous evidence and that driving instructor travel time is not an authorized transportation expense.

However, the Tribunal approved the treatment plan for psychological services, finding it reasonable and necessary based on the unrefuted opinion of the applicant's psychologist and corroborating neuropsychological assessments.

The applicant was also awarded interest on the approved psychological treatment plan.

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

The respondent insurer took the position that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied several treatment plans.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove that her pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG or that her chronic pain adversely affected her well-being and function under the AMA Guides criteria.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a physiatry assessment because the respondent failed to provide proper medical reasons for its denial, triggering the consequences of s. 38(11) of the Schedule.

The remaining treatment plans were dismissed as they proposed treatment outside the MIG limits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for an occupational therapy assessment, physiotherapy, chiropractic treatment, massage therapy, and craniosacral therapy.

The respondent denied the claims.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the occupational therapy assessment was not reasonable and necessary as there was no evidence of attendant care needs.

The Tribunal also found that the proposed physiotherapy, chiropractic, and massage treatments were either a duplication of previously approved services or lacked compelling contemporaneous evidence.

Finally, the claims for craniosacral therapy were dismissed because the expenses were incurred before a treatment plan was submitted, contrary to section 38(2) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and funding for various treatment plans following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant did not submit a completed disability certificate until February 2019, precluding non-earner benefits prior to that date.

For the period after February 2019, the adjudicator dismissed the claim because the applicant provided highly inconsistent evidence regarding his pre-accident employment and activities, making it impossible to apply the Heath test to determine if he suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, finding one statute-barred and all of them lacking contemporaneous medical evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and payment for an accounting report following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to IRBs within 104 weeks of the accident, as surveillance evidence and an Employer's Confirmation Form showed he had returned to his pre-accident employment as a contractor.

The applicant also failed to meet the stricter post-104-week test.

The claim for the accounting report was denied because it incorrectly calculated the IRB amount and was not reasonable or necessary.

The application was dismissed.