Susan Sapin

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to remove her 28.80 kg dog, Murphy, and to cease bringing other large dogs onto the property in breach of the pet rules.

The respondent claimed she was entitled to keep Murphy as an emotional support animal under the Human Rights Code and that the rules did not prohibit visiting dogs.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the rules by operating a dog-walking business and bringing other large dogs onto the property, ordering her to cease this conduct.

However, the Tribunal held that the respondent established a disability and a need for accommodation, allowing her to keep Murphy.

The applicant was awarded partial costs.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner to cease causing unreasonable noise.

The respondent had been banging on walls and shouting at the owner of the unit above him in retaliation for normal walking noises.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found the respondent's behaviour constituted a substantial and unreasonable nuisance in breach of the Condominium Act and the corporation's rules.

The respondent was ordered to permanently cease the noise-making and to pay $4,200 in costs and filing fees.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal.

During Stage 2 mediation, the applicant informed the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw their case.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the case closed.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a request for condominium records.

The respondent condominium corporation refused the request on the basis that the applicant was not the registered owner of the unit.

The Tribunal found that under the Condominium Act, 1998, only an owner, purchaser, or mortgagee may request records or apply to the Tribunal.

As the applicant's wife was the registered owner, the applicant lacked standing.

The parties consented to the dismissal of the case during mediation, with the respondent agreeing to process a deemed request from the applicant's wife.

The applicant and respondent consented to merge two related Condominium Authority Tribunal cases into a single proceeding.

The Tribunal ordered the merger under section 1.37(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, finding it to be the most efficient and cost-effective manner to resolve the disputes.

The second case file was ordered closed.

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 over 15 days.

Pursuant to Rule 34.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, the tribunal ordered the case closed.

The applicant unit owner brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation, alleging it failed to enforce rules regarding parking, balcony storage, and locker storage.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation had failed to enforce its rules consistently, including rules prohibiting unlicensed vehicles in underground parking, residents parking in visitor spaces, and non-seasonal items stored on balconies.

The Tribunal ordered the corporation to enforce its rules and reimburse the applicant's tribunal fees.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a broad request for core and non-core records dating back to 2013.

The respondent corporation provided many records but refused to provide CMRAO and CAO orders and emails, arguing they were not required to be kept.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had received all core records and most non-core records she was entitled to, though some were provided late.

The Tribunal ruled that CMRAO and CAO orders and related emails are records the corporation is required to keep and ordered their production if they exist.

The Tribunal declined to impose a penalty due to the overly broad nature of the request and the corporation's eventual compliance, but ordered the corporation to reimburse the applicant's $200 filing fee.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal, which proceeded to Stage 2 mediation.

The applicant was given the opportunity to move the case to Stage 3 but failed to do so for more than 30 days.

Pursuant to Rule 32.3 of the CAT's Rules of Practice, the tribunal ordered the case closed in Stage 2.

The applicant condominium owner sought access to various condominium records, including contractor invoices and reserve fund statements.

The parties reached a settlement using the Condominium Authority Tribunal's online system.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to provide the requested records in electronic format.

The applicant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits based on insurer examinations concluding the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The Tribunal found the applicant's ongoing pain and psychological impairments continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, entitling her to non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal also determined the reasonable and necessary quantum of attendant care benefits and ordered a 5 percent award against the insurer for unreasonably delaying payment of medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The applicant was struck by a city bus as a pedestrian, sustaining soft tissue injuries and a mild traumatic brain injury.

She subsequently developed severe depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

She applied for a determination that her impairments met the catastrophic threshold under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while her cognitive complaints were largely psychogenic rather than organic, her psychological impairments were genuine and severely debilitating.

Relying on comprehensive neuropsychological and occupational therapy assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a marked impairment in the adaptation domain, thereby meeting the criteria for a catastrophic impairment under s. 2(1.2)(g) of the Schedule.

The applicant, a tow truck driver, was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The insurer terminated the IRBs after eight months, arguing that the applicant's ongoing pain was due to pre-existing degenerative disc disease rather than the accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant credible and preferred the evidence of his treating specialists over the insurer's expert, concluding that the accident aggravated his underlying condition and caused chronic pain and radiculopathy.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was substantially unable to perform the heavy physical duties of his pre-accident employment and was therefore entitled to ongoing IRBs.

The applicant was injured in a T-bone collision and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) for two years.

The insurer terminated IRBs at the 104-week mark, arguing the applicant could return to suitable employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's accident-related soft tissue injuries aggravated pre-existing arthritis in his hand, resulting in chronic pain and functional limitations.

Given his physical restrictions, limited education, and lack of transferable skills, the Tribunal concluded he suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment and was entitled to ongoing IRBs.

Claims for further chiropractic and massage treatments were dismissed as not reasonable or necessary.

The applicant sought a determination that her impairments from a motor vehicle accident met the 55% whole person impairment (WPI) threshold for catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator evaluated conflicting medical evidence regarding the applicant's neurological and psychological impairments, including sleep disorders, mental status, and somatic disorders.

While the adjudicator preferred much of the applicant's medical evidence and found the insurer's assessors had underestimated the impairments, the final combined WPI was determined to be 51%.

As this fell short of the 55% threshold, the application was dismissed.

L'appelante a interjeté appel de la mise en fourrière de son véhicule automobile pour une durée de 45 jours, au motif que cela lui causerait un préjudice excessif.

Le véhicule a été mis en fourrière parce que son conjoint le conduisait alors que son permis était suspendu.

L'appelante a soutenu qu'elle avait besoin de son camion à quatre roues motrices pour se rendre au travail en toute sécurité pendant l'hiver.

Le Tribunal a conclu que l'appelante n'avait pas démontré qu'elle n'avait pas de solution de rechange raisonnable, comme la location d'un véhicule ou l'achat de pneus d'hiver pour son autre véhicule.

L'appel a été rejeté et la mise en fourrière confirmée.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The core issue was whether his mental and behavioural impairments, specifically his cannabis dependence and adaptation difficulties, constituted a marked impairment (Class 4).

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence lacking in credibility and preferred the insurer's expert evidence, concluding that the applicant's impairments were only moderate (Class 3) and his combined whole person impairment did not meet the 55% threshold.

The application was dismissed, and the insurer was awarded partial expenses due to the applicant's conduct prolonging the proceeding.

The insurer brought a preliminary motion to preclude the insured applicants from mediating their accident benefits disputes because they failed to attend insurer's examinations (IEs).

The applicants had refused to attend the IEs unless the insurer provided a MAG-accredited Cantonese interpreter.

The arbitrator found that the applicants' demand for a MAG-accredited interpreter was unreasonable.

However, the arbitrator held that the applicants were not precluded from mediation under s. 55(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because the insurer's notices of examination were defective.

The notices failed to provide the 'medical and any other reasons' for the examinations as required by s. 44(5).

Despite this, the arbitrator awarded $750 in expenses to the insurer because the applicants' unreasonable insistence on a MAG-accredited interpreter and their delay in raising the defective notice issue prolonged the proceedings.

The law firm representing the family members of a deceased insured person in a claim for death benefits brought a motion to withdraw as counsel due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration until the claimants produced documents proving their financial dependency.

The arbitrator granted the law firm's motion to withdraw, finding that they were unable to obtain meaningful instructions from the claimants.

The arbitrator also granted the insurer's motion to stay the proceedings until the required documents were produced.

The arbitrator clarified that the family members were not required to pursue their claims through the deceased's estate, as they were considered 'insured persons' under the Insurance Act for the purpose of claiming death benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for three treatment plans.

The insurer 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 arbitrator dismissed the claims on two grounds.

First, the treatment plans were not signed by the applicant or a regulated health professional, as strictly required by section 38(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Second, the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her injuries, including her ongoing chronic pain, fell outside the MIG.