Shannon Braun

The claimants brought a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act against Metrolinx.

The parties reached a full and final settlement and the claimants agreed to the dismissal of their claims.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered that all claims be dismissed on a without costs basis.

The claimants brought a proceeding for the determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was advised that the parties had reached a full and final settlement.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered that all claims be dismissed on a without costs basis.

The claimants brought claims for compensation under the Expropriations Act regarding properties in Newmarket.

Following a full and final settlement between the parties, the Ontario Land Tribunal ordered the claims dismissed on a without costs basis on consent.

The Tribunal issued an order on consent of the parties to amend the procedural timelines contained in a previously issued Procedural Order for appeals concerning a proposed industrial warehouse development.

The amended dates relate to the exchange of witness statements, visual evidence, joint book of documents, and the preliminary hearing plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by Bartels Environmental Services Inc. against the Municipality of West Perth.

The appeals relate to a zoning bylaw amendment and site plan application to permit a biosolid storage facility on the subject property.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The appellant appealed the Town of Pelham's Zoning By-law No. 13-2024.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties agreed to narrow the scope of the appeal to the appellant's lands on a without-prejudice basis.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered that the unappealed portions of the by-law are in full force and effect, while the site-specific provisions remain under appeal.

The appeal was adjourned sine die.

The Claimant sought compensation from the Regional Municipality of Waterloo regarding an expropriated property.

The parties submitted amended pleadings on consent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered that the proceeding continue with the amended pleadings and updated the title of proceeding accordingly.

The claimant and respondent submitted a consent form requesting the Ontario Land Tribunal to dismiss the matter regarding the determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal ordered the matter dismissed without costs upon the request and consent of both parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals from the Municipality of Clarington's failure to make a decision on proposed plans of subdivision.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the upcoming five-day hearing scheduled to commence on December 4, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan control applications for a 14-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent, setting the hearing dates and outlining the procedural steps, issues list, and order of evidence for the upcoming hearing.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision granting the insured partial payment for multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessments.

The insurer argued the OCF-18 was invalid because it was completed by a chiropractor recommending assessments outside her scope of practice, and that the assessments were unpayable 'rebuttal' reports.

The Adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration, finding that a chiropractor may recommend assessments by other specialists and that the reports were the insured's first set of assessments, not rebuttals.

Although a procedural error occurred regarding post-hearing submissions, it was remedied on reconsideration.

The insurer's request was dismissed, and the insured's request for costs was denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $2,961.72 for a kinesiologist-supervised exercise program.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and could perform exercises independently.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating practitioners that supervision was required to avoid aggravating her impairments and to support her psychological well-being.

The applicant was awarded the claimed benefit.

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

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

The applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence of chronic pain unreliable and inconsistent with his own reporting and medical records.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG, and since the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the claims for further chiropractic treatment were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The adjudicator found the applicant was entitled to an income replacement benefit for the disputed period, as her subjective pain experience resulted in a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment as a production worker.

The adjudicator also approved two physiotherapy treatment plans and the cost of prescription medication, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Claims for the cost of a disability certificate and medical records were dismissed.

The adjudicator declined to order an award under O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer's decisions to withhold benefits were not unreasonable given the medical information available to it at the time.

Interest was awarded on all overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $3,539.72 for a physiotherapy treatment plan, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the treatment plan to be reasonable and necessary, relying on the applicant's consistent reports of pain and the recommendations of both the applicant's assessor and one of the respondent's own assessors that further therapy was warranted.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the benefit with interest, but denied the applicant's claim for an award under Ontario Regulation 664, finding no evidence that the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the chiropractic treatments were passive and the psychological sessions were unnecessarily long.

The Tribunal found that the applicant demonstrated consistent improvement with the chiropractic treatments and that the longer psychological sessions were necessary to safely address trauma.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed treatment plans and interest on overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic treatment and the cost of a disability certificate under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's recovery had plateaued and further treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting the absence of clinical records supporting improvement and the applicant's own reports of plateaued recovery.

The claim for the disability certificate cost was also dismissed as it was not requested by the insurer nor required under the Schedule.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.