Sara Mintz

The Licence Appeal Tribunal initiated a reconsideration of a previous decision on its own initiative after discovering the former adjudicator had accepted an offer of employment with the respondent insurer, Aviva, prior to releasing the decision.

The Associate Chair found that the former adjudicator's failure to recuse herself or disclose the conflict of interest created a reasonable apprehension of bias, violating the rules of procedural fairness.

The original decision was cancelled, and a new oral hearing was ordered.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal initiated a reconsideration of a decision after discovering the former adjudicator had accepted an offer of employment with the respondent insurer, Aviva, prior to hearing the matter.

The Associate Chair found that the former adjudicator's failure to disclose this conflict and recuse herself created a reasonable apprehension of bias, violating the rules of procedural fairness.

The original decision was cancelled and a rehearing in writing was ordered before a different adjudicator.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal initiated a reconsideration of a previous decision after discovering the former adjudicator had accepted an offer of employment with the respondent's parent company, Aviva, prior to hearing the matter.

The Associate Chair found that the former adjudicator's failure to disclose this conflict and recuse herself created a reasonable apprehension of bias, violating the rules of procedural fairness.

The original decision was cancelled, and a new oral hearing with a different adjudicator was ordered.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The applicant conceded she had a mental disorder and had caused or threatened serious bodily harm, but argued the remaining statutory criteria were not met.

The Board found that the secure treatment program would be effective, appropriate treatment was available, and no less restrictive method was appropriate given the applicant's escalating aggressive behaviours and the exhaustion of community resources.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to remove a 10-year-old child from her care after four years.

The society removed the child without providing the required statutory notice.

The Board considered the child's best interests, including his strong attachment to the applicant, his views and wishes to return to her care, and the importance of continuity.

The Board found that the applicant could manage the child's behavioural challenges if provided with adequate supports, such as respite care.

The Board ordered the child returned to the applicant's care.

The Applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical and psychological injuries allegedly sustained during an altercation in an elevator.

The Board found the Applicant lacked credibility, noting inconsistent testimony and her admission to kicking the assailant first.

Applying section 17(1) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, the Board concluded the Applicant's own behaviour directly contributed to her injuries and that she assumed a significant element of risk by remaining in the elevator.

The application for compensation, including claims for expenses and income loss, was denied.