Sancia Pinto

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to mediation.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant sought access to condominium records.

The parties reached a settlement during Stage 2 Mediation in the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online dispute resolution system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide a written statement explaining the redactions made to board meeting minutes, confirm that no other minutes exist for the specified period, require board members to review CAO best practices guides, and reimburse the applicant's $75 filing fee.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal which proceeded to mediation.

After being given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3, the applicant failed to take any steps to do so for more than 15 days.

The Tribunal ordered the case closed under Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of treatment plans for physical therapy, a chronic pain assessment, and psychological services.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's medical evidence that the physical injuries had resolved and that the requested psychological treatment exceeded what was warranted.

The claims for an award and interest were also dismissed as no benefits were found to be outstanding.

The applicant, a condominium owner, sought access to records from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties reached a settlement during the mediation stage of the Condominium Authority Tribunal process.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent to provide the applicant with redacted financial statements and an audio/video recording of the annual general meeting.

The respondent was also ordered to pay $75 for Tribunal filing fees and $300 for the denial of access to records.

The applicant, a condominium owner, sought access to board minutes from the respondent condominium corporation.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order from the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested approved and unapproved board minutes, subject to statutory redactions, and to pay the applicant $150.00.

The case was resolved without a hearing.

The applicant condominium owner requested a copy of the corporation's fire safety plan.

The respondent corporation failed to respond to the request or participate in the early stages of the Tribunal process.

During the hearing, the respondent provided the record at no cost and conceded that a penalty was appropriate.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $300 penalty for failing to provide the record without a reasonable excuse, along with $205 in costs.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

Following a motion by the respondent regarding multiple vexatious proceedings, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to nominate which of two cases would proceed.

The applicant withdrew this case and nominated the other to proceed.

The Tribunal ordered the case closed and dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for massage and chiropractic services across three treatment plans.

The respondent denied the treatment plans following section 44 assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence submitted by the applicant, including reports from treating practitioners, was outdated, lacked specific recommendations for the disputed treatments, or failed to demonstrate how the treatments would achieve their stated goals.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was payable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including a multi-disciplinary catastrophic impairment assessment, under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient compelling medical evidence to prove that the proposed chiropractic treatment, orthopaedic assessment, neuropsychological assessment, and catastrophic impairment assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's medical records did not support ongoing functional limitations or a deterioration in condition that would warrant the requested assessments.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, and claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claims of chronic pain or psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment which included objective psychometric testing.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought medical benefits for physiotherapy, chiropractic, and massage therapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan based on an insurer's examination.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's orthopedic surgeon, who concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and would not benefit from further facility-based treatment, over the applicant's medical records which showed limited improvement.

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

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

The applicant argued her injuries fell outside the MIG due to a pre-existing condition, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient compelling medical evidence to establish a pre-existing condition or chronic pain syndrome.

Applying the "but for" test for causation, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's psychological impairments were related to social, work, and family stressors rather than the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian injured in a 2013 motor vehicle accident, sought medical benefits for physical rehabilitation and chiropractic treatment from the respondent.

The respondent denied the benefits based on an insurer's examination which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to prove the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.