Monica Ciriello

The appellant, facing a proposal to revoke her registration under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, brought a motion requesting that the Tribunal assign a female adjudicator to her hearing.

She argued her case involved sexism and misogyny.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was inappropriate to assign an adjudicator based on gender.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the request did not raise a valid basis for accommodation under the Human Rights Code and was in fact at odds with it.

The Tribunal held that a party cannot direct the sex of the assigned adjudicator.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on physical injuries, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the evidentiary burden to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's medical examinations over the applicant's evidence, noting inconsistencies and a lack of functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans, interest, and award were denied.

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

The respondent denied certain benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended that a pre-existing psychological condition, stemming from the death of his daughter and a marital breakdown, prevented his maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence of a pre-existing psychological impairment or diagnosis that would prevent maximal recovery.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the disputed treatment plan, interest, and award were denied.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied a medical benefit for hospital expenses, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500, which had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing psychological and physical conditions, as well as chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that her pre-existing conditions prevented maximal medical recovery within the MIG, or that she suffered from functionally disabling chronic pain.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

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

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and a Regulation 664 award were dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to two treatment plans for chiropractic services and interest under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans based on an insurer's examination which concluded the applicant sustained only uncomplicated soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's medical evidence over the applicant's chronic pain assessment, which relied heavily on subjective reporting.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs due to late disclosure was denied.

The applicant sought medical benefits for acupuncture and catastrophic determination assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the acupuncture treatment plans were not reasonable or necessary, as the applicant had achieved maximum therapeutic benefit and met his goals of returning to work and daily activities.

The Tribunal also denied the catastrophic determination assessments because the applicant provided no submissions to prove entitlement.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant, a motor vehicle salesperson facing revocation of her registration, brought a motion to compel the Registrar to testify as a witness at her upcoming hearing.

The appellant argued the Registrar had relevant knowledge as the individual who executed the Notice of Proposal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate the Registrar had any relevant or necessary evidence to provide.

The Tribunal noted that the hearing is a de novo proceeding, making the Registrar's reasons for issuing the proposal irrelevant, and found the requested summons was overly broad and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its homes' enrolment in the Ontario New Home Warranties and Protection Plan.

The appellant brought a motion to summons the Deputy Registrar who signed the Notice of Proposal to testify at the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Deputy Registrar's evidence was not relevant because the Tribunal conducts a de novo hearing and does not review the regulator's conduct or initial decision.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for occupational therapy, psychological treatment, and an activity rest schedule evaluation following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer had removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline but denied the specific treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove on a balance of probabilities that any of the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's section 44 multidisciplinary assessors, who concluded the treatments were not required.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while skateboarding and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services, assistive devices, and psychological services.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support the need for the proposed treatments, noting that independent medical examinations concluded the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the assistive devices expense was incurred, and that the applicant had impliedly consented to the hourly rate paid for psychological services.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, a cannabis retail operator, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its licence.

The appellant brought a motion for a confidentiality order to seal portions of the Notice of Proposal, Notice of Appeal, and a police Occurrence Report, arguing that public disclosure of unproven allegations regarding organized crime and an attempted murder would cause reputational harm and jeopardize an ongoing police investigation.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish a serious risk to an important public interest that would justify sealing the allegations.

However, the Tribunal ordered limited redactions to protect the personal identifiers of a minor child and non-party individuals mentioned in the police report, concluding that their safety outweighed the open court principle.

The remainder of the motion was dismissed.

The appellant, a consumer reporting agency, appealed a proposal to suspend its registration and brought a motion for a confidentiality order over the adjudicative records, citing potential reputational harm.

A third-party requester sought access to the records.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, applying the Sherman Estate test.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that court openness posed a serious risk to an important public interest, as the claims of irreversible reputational harm were highly speculative and the public has a strong interest in accessing documents related to consumer protection proceedings.