Angela Broccolini

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the late submission of his Application for Accident Benefits (OCF-1).

The insurer argued that the adjudicators erred in their assessment of the applicant's credibility and the reasonableness of his explanation, specifically regarding when he retained counsel and his post-accident medical complications.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the insurer was attempting to re-litigate findings of fact and had failed to establish any error of law or fact that would warrant varying the decision.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident that resulted in a knee injury, which subsequently became infected with necrotizing fasciitis leading to a leg amputation.

The respondent argued the infection was caused by strep throat, not the accident.

Applying the 'but for' test for causation, the Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the accident caused the initial trauma which allowed the infection to enter the knee.

The Tribunal found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment but denied the claim for a section 10 award as no supporting evidence was provided.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after injuring his right leg while being placed in the back seat of a police vehicle.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' and that the applicant was statute-barred for providing late notice.

The Tribunal found that the incident met the definition of an accident, as being a seated passenger in a police vehicle is an ordinary use, and the vehicle's use was the dominant feature of the injury, which ultimately led to a below-the-knee amputation.

The Tribunal also found the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the late notice due to his severe medical complications and lack of sophistication.

The applicant was awarded $2,200.00 for an orthopaedic assessment.

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

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was precluded from proceeding with her application under s. 55(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because she failed to attend requested s. 44 insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not precluded from proceeding with her physical rehabilitation claims because the insurer ultimately conducted a paper review examination that did not require her attendance.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was precluded from proceeding with her psychological assessment claim because she failed to attend the scheduled in-person examinations and the insurer's notices of examination were sufficient and compliant with s. 44(5).

The insurer moved for a production order compelling the claimant to produce a decoded OHIP summary from 2000 onwards and prescription records from 1990 onwards, arguing they were relevant to the claim for non-earner benefits following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator noted that while medical records are producible if relevant, the standard practice at the Commission is to limit production to one year prior to the accident unless a basis for a broader request is provided.

Finding that the insurer failed to demonstrate the relevance of records going back a decade or more, the arbitrator refused the broad request but extended the standard timeframe slightly, ordering the claimant to make best efforts to produce the requested records for a period of two years prior to the accident.

The parties sought costs following an arbitration hearing where the insurer successfully refuted the applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer also sought to make the applicant's representative personally liable for costs, which was dismissed on a summary judgment motion.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer $4,509.21 in expenses for the arbitration hearing, finding its claimed hours excessive and applying a 1:1 ratio for preparation to hearing time.

The arbitrator awarded the representative $500 for the summary judgment motion, finding the insurer's conduct unreasonable.

The arbitrator declined to allow the insurer to set off its costs award against the amount owed to the representative.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision allowing a subdivision application to proceed to a hearing.

The central issue was whether the Board had jurisdiction under the Planning Act despite amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act requiring a development permit before any development decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to address the mandatory language of the amended legislation.

The Court further held that the respondent did not have a vested right to a hearing before the Board.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to the Divisional Court.

The OMB had dismissed a joint motion to dismiss a draft plan of subdivision without a hearing, finding it had jurisdiction despite amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision because it failed to apply principles of statutory interpretation regarding vested rights and jurisdiction.

The court also found the issue of the OMB's jurisdiction in light of collateral statutory amendments to be of sufficient public importance.