Maureen Helt

The Conservation Review Board held a settlement conference regarding objections by the property owners to Notices of Intention to Designate four properties issued by the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The SORE Association also appeared as a party.

The Board issued a procedural order directing the resumption of the settlement conference on March 19, 2020.

The Requestor sought an extension of time to file a request for review of a Board decision that dismissed his application to reduce his 2017 municipal taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The request was filed beyond the 30-day limit under Rule 120.

The Requestor claimed his delay was due to sickness but provided no evidence to substantiate this claim.

The Board denied the request for an extension of time.

The Appellants filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal a municipal order requiring them to pay $75,290.81 for the cleanup of spilled pollutants under the Environmental Protection Act.

The order was issued in March 2017, but the notice of appeal was filed over two and a half years later.

The Tribunal found that the Appellants had received notice of the order shortly after its issuance and had legal representation shortly thereafter.

As the Appellants failed to meet the statutory exception of not receiving notice, the motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant requested the reinstatement of its property assessment appeals after they were dismissed for failure to serve a Statement of Issues.

The appellant argued that the Board failed to provide proper notice of the impending dismissal and violated the rules of natural justice.

The Board denied the request, finding that the appellant had received adequate notice through a Board-generated form served by the respondent, had failed to respond within the required timeframe, and had not demonstrated any breach of procedural fairness.

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

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding due to non-attendance at insurer examinations; the Tribunal found the notice of examination was deficient and allowed the claim to proceed.

On the merits, the Tribunal held that the applicant's psychological impairments removed him from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal approved the psychological assessment and treatment plans as reasonable and necessary, but denied the claims for attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, and chiropractic treatment.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in New York and elected to receive New York no-fault benefits.

She later applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for Ontario statutory accident benefits, arguing her initial election was invalid because the insurer failed to provide sufficient information under section 32 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the insurer complied with its obligations to provide appropriate forms and a written explanation of benefits, and was not required to provide legal advice on which jurisdiction to choose.

The election was deemed valid and binding, precluding the applicant from re-electing Ontario benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming for a chiropractic treatment plan and a hospital emergency room visit.

The respondent insurer denied the claims.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the chiropractic treatment plan to be reasonable and necessary, as it helped reduce pain and increase range of motion, despite the insurer's medical reports suggesting otherwise.

However, the Tribunal denied the claim for the hospital visit, finding the applicant failed to prove it was directly related to the accident.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied its claim for repayment of non-earner benefits paid in error to the respondent.

The original decision found that the 12-month limitation period under section 52(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule began to run from the date of the first payment.

On reconsideration, the Vice-Chair found this interpretation to be a significant error of law.

The Vice-Chair held that section 52(3) unambiguously allows an insurer to seek repayment of benefits paid in error within the 12 months preceding the notice.

The reconsideration request was granted, and the respondent was ordered to repay $2,193.57.

The insurer's request for costs was denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to chiropractic treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and law regarding the medical evidence of causation, the severity of a subsequent accident, and the refusal to extend a limitation period for a denied treatment plan.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant errors of law or fact that would have likely resulted in a different decision.

The appellant, a tenant operating an auto body repair shop on the main floor of a mixed-use building, appealed an Inspection Order and an Order to Close issued by the Toronto Fire Services.

The orders were issued due to fire safety risks posed by the combination of the industrial occupancy and residential units on the second floor.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the orders were substantively necessary for fire safety, the Order to Close was invalid because the Fire Marshal's Extension of Delegation of Authority did not explicitly delegate the power to issue such orders to Deputy Fire Chiefs.

Consequently, the Commission confirmed the Inspection Order with a modified compliance date but rescinded the Order to Close.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a motion decision that denied his request to reinstate his application or set aside his Notice of Withdrawal.

The applicant argued the Vice-Chair erred in law by failing to apply the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal found no significant error of law or violation of procedural fairness, noting that the withdrawal was unconditional and made with legal advice.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision ordering payment of a $2,106 treatment plan for physiotherapy services.

The insurer argued the Adjudicator erred in interpreting a Partial Release signed in a related FSCO matter as not barring the LAT claim.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the Partial Release clearly limited the settlement to past claims that were the subject matter of the FSCO file, and the insurer failed to establish a significant error of law or fact.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant $200 for the remaining cost of a psychological assessment.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law by basing its finding on whether the $200 difference between the assessor's recommended amount and the approved amount was "significant," and that the applicant failed to prove the fee was reasonable under section 25 of the Schedule.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal carefully weighed the evidence, including the insurer's own assessor's opinion, and made no significant error of law that would have led to a different outcome.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied its request for repayment of $6,059.23 in Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) paid to the insured.

The insurer argued that the Tribunal erred by failing to deduct corporate losses from the insured's pre-accident self-employment income when calculating the quantum of IRBs payable.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding that under section 7(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, losses from self-employment must be used to reduce pre-accident employment income.

After deducting the corporate losses and post-accident income, the insured's IRB entitlement was zero.

The reconsideration was granted, and the insured was ordered to repay the $6,059.23 overpayment.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a motion decision that dismissed its request to dismiss the application.

The insurer had conceded all issues in dispute (entitlement and quantum of benefits) and argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing when there was no live dispute.

The Vice-Chair found that while the Tribunal did not lose jurisdiction, the original adjudicator made a significant error of law in interpreting section 281 of the Insurance Act.

Section 281 provides procedural protection after a decision is made but does not require the Tribunal to hold a hearing when all issues are resolved.

The reconsideration was granted, and the application was dismissed, save for the issue of costs.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a motion order that permitted the applicant to file a late affidavit regarding an orthopaedic assessment.

The respondent argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and law and breached procedural fairness by denying cross-examination.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant errors and noting that the respondent was given an opportunity to respond to the affidavit, which minimized any prejudice and satisfied procedural fairness.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident and disputed the respondent's denial of catastrophic impairment.

The applicant brought a motion for a summons directing a third-party assessment provider, SOMA, to produce its complete file and assessment records prior to the hearing.

SOMA opposed the motion, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order pre-hearing third-party production.

The Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to order pre-hearing production from non-parties to ensure an efficient and timely resolution.

Finding the requested documents relevant to the catastrophic impairment dispute, the Tribunal granted the motion in part and ordered SOMA to produce the assessment files.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a motion decision that dismissed their request to remove the respondent's counsel of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The applicant argued that the respondent's law firm previously represented a defendant in a related tort claim.

The Tribunal found no error in fact or law in the original decision, noting that the tort matter was dismissed years prior, the lawyer involved had left the firm, and there was no evidence that confidential information was shared.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondent insurer brought a motion for the production of the applicant's accident benefits file from a subsequent motor vehicle accident, as well as the applicant's Employment Insurance file and bank statements.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the subsequent accident benefits file subject to redactions for relevance and privilege, as it was relevant to assessing the applicant's ongoing impairments and causation.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for the EI file and bank statements, finding them irrelevant, highly intrusive, and obtainable through other means.

The applicant, injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits and filed a motion for the production of the respondent's adjuster log notes from the date of the OCF-1 to the date of the application to the Tribunal.

The respondent argued that notes created after the initial FSCO application were protected by litigation privilege.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the log notes subject to redactions for relevance, reserves, and privilege, noting that litigation privilege attached to the issue of catastrophic impairment only upon its denial on December 5, 2016.