Nicole Treksler

The respondent lawyer was found to have engaged in professional misconduct for failing to cooperate with successor counsel, withholding client files and trust funds, delaying settlement payments, failing to report a potential LAWPRO claim, and breaching court and Ministry of Labour orders.

The Law Society sought revocation of his licence, while the respondent sought a one to three-month suspension.

The Tribunal found that while the misconduct was serious and repetitive, revocation was disproportionate given the respondent's rehabilitation efforts and lack of prior discipline history until recently.

The Tribunal imposed a seven-month suspension and ordered the respondent to pay $15,000 in costs.

The Law Society alleged that the respondent lawyer committed professional misconduct by falsifying a client's signature on appeal documents, improperly commissioning an affidavit in the client's absence, and filing documents without verifying their contents.

The respondent admitted to the misconduct in an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Tribunal accepted a joint submission for a three-month suspension and $5,390 in costs, finding that the proposed penalty was consistent with jurisprudence and did not meet the high public interest threshold for rejection.

The Law Society of Ontario brought a conduct application against a suspended paralegal for misappropriating $17,835 from five clients, providing legal services while suspended, practising outside the permitted scope of a paralegal by taking on immigration matters, and failing to co-operate with five Law Society investigations.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found all allegations of professional misconduct proven.

Given the seriousness of the misconduct, the respondent's ungovernability, and the absence of mitigating factors, the Tribunal ordered the immediate revocation of the respondent's licence, restitution to the clients and the Compensation Fund, and costs of $12,068.76.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied income replacement benefits, a medical benefit, and the cost of a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were not minor, as he suffered from a psychological impairment and chronic pain syndrome that could not be treated within the $3,500 MIG limit.

The Tribunal awarded income replacement benefits up to the 104-week mark, finding the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal also awarded the cost of a psychological assessment but denied the remaining balance for a physiotherapy treatment plan because the massage therapy rate exceeded the FSCO guideline limit.

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

The respondent denied the claims, asserting the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and that she had exhausted the $3,500 MIG limit, disentitling her to further medical and attendant care benefits.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, noting the applicant had returned to work shortly after the accident and failed to provide persuasive medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits, including chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plans, following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying on the respondent's orthopaedic assessments which found no objective evidence of accident-related impairment.

The applicant's claim for a psychological assessment was also dismissed as a duplication of service.

Furthermore, the adjudicator ordered the applicant to repay $8,583.12 in income replacement benefits that were overpaid due to an insurer error, as the applicant failed to establish any exception to the repayment obligation under section 52 of the Schedule.

Claims for a section 10 award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after sustaining injuries when she fell off the rear bumper of a moving vehicle while 'car surfing'.

The respondent insurer denied benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the two-part Amos test and found that the vehicle was being used for transportation, an ordinary and well-known activity, despite the applicant's dangerous and illegal use of it.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was involved in an accident and is entitled to proceed with her claim for benefits.

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

The insurer denied claims for occupational and physiotherapy services and required the applicant to attend insurer's examinations (IEs).

The applicant failed to attend the IEs, arguing the insurer's denial letters did not comply with the notice requirements under sections 38(8) and 44(5) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the denial letters sufficiently provided medical reasons for the IEs.

Consequently, the applicant had no valid defence for her non-attendance and is barred under section 55 of the Schedule from proceeding before the Tribunal until she attends the required IEs.

The self-represented applicant sought payment for a chiropractic treatment plan in the amount of $4,493.71 following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed she suffered from whiplash, fibromyalgia, and 'windy poison'.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide persuasive evidence linking her fibromyalgia and 'windy poison' to the accident.

While whiplash was verified as a direct result of the accident, the applicant provided no objective medical opinion supporting that chiropractic treatment would improve her condition, whereas the respondent's orthopaedic assessment concluded treatment would not help.

The application was dismissed as the treatment plan was not shown to be reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent raised preliminary issues regarding the applicant's failure to attend a physiatry insurer examination (IE) and failure to provide information under section 33 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal held that the applicant is barred from proceeding with her IRB claim until she attends the physiatry IE, as the respondent's request was reasonably necessary.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant had provided sufficient information and documentation to the respondent, meaning her claim was not barred under section 33.

Neither party was awarded costs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy services and orthopaedic and psychiatric assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claims based on insurer examinations.

The adjudicator found that the physiotherapy services were reasonable and necessary for managing the applicant's chronic pain, rejecting the insurer's argument that treatment must lead to full recovery.

The adjudicator also approved the assessments, noting the insurer's assessors conducted paper reviews without reviewing key medical reports.

Finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld payments, the adjudicator ordered a special award of 50% of the disputed amounts, plus interest.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing conditions, including knee osteoarthritis and abdominal issues, as well as a post-accident chronic pain diagnosis, removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for multiple treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary, but denied the cost of a medical bracelet and the applicant's request for costs.

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

The respondent initially denied catastrophic designation, income replacement benefits, and attendant care benefits, but conceded the catastrophic designation and income replacement benefits shortly before the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's attendant care benefits were incurred because the service provider was working as a personal support worker at the time the services were rendered.

The Tribunal also awarded the applicant 30% of the income replacement benefits owed due to the respondent's unreasonable delay and excessive documentation requests.

The applicant, a 72-year-old retiree, sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim based on insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal applied the Heath test to compare the applicant's pre- and post-accident activities.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant experienced some pain and psychological distress, she failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to participate in her pre-accident activities.

The application for non-earner benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought attendant care benefits, medical benefits, and the cost of examinations under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to attendant care benefits for the initial period as the expenses were properly incurred, but denied benefits for the subsequent period based on the applicant's admissions of self-sufficiency and surveillance evidence.

Several treatment plans, including those for a TMJ assessment, chiropractic services, an orthopaedic assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, were deemed reasonable and necessary given the applicant's chronic pain and objective medical evidence.

Other treatment plans were denied for lack of supporting evidence.

The respondent's request for costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits (ACBs) and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent initially denied the benefits based on an occupational therapy assessment.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's medical evidence, including clinical notes from her family doctor and a pain consultant, established her entitlement to ACBs.

The adjudicator also found that the expenses were deemed incurred after August 2015 because the respondent unreasonably withheld payment.

The respondent was ordered to pay ACBs of $873.30 per month from July 16, 2015 to September 30, 2016, plus interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits.

After 104 weeks, the respondent scheduled insurer's examinations to determine ongoing entitlement.

The applicant failed to attend the examinations due to a scheduling conflict with her school attendance, insisting on weekend appointments.

The respondent suspended benefits and raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was precluded from proceeding before the Tribunal under section 55 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the failure to attend was due to a miscommunication, the applicant must still attend the examinations before proceeding with her claim, and ordered her to make herself available during the week.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a digital motion x-ray exam, assessments, and transportation expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to prove the digital x-ray and assessments were reasonable and necessary, relying instead on the respondent's insurer examinations which found no accident-related abnormalities.

The claim for transportation expenses was denied because the applicant failed to submit a required treatment plan.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied as there was no evidence of unreasonable or bad faith conduct by the applicant.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, non-earner benefits, medical benefits, and costs of examinations.

The Tribunal dismissed all claims.

The claim for attendant care benefits was denied as surveillance and the applicant's own statements showed he was independent in personal care.

The non-earner benefits claim was denied because the applicant failed to submit a Disability Certificate until the hearing.

The medical benefits and examination costs were denied as not reasonable and necessary, lacking sufficient medical evidence to support them.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life or that her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline.

Relying on the insurer's medical examinations, the adjudicator concluded the applicant's injuries were minor and dismissed all claims for benefits.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.