Anushika Upamali Anthony

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental or behavioural disorder) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the claim, relying on its psychiatric assessor who found only mild to moderate impairments.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's assessors, noting that they appropriately included pain-related impairments and relied on functional occupational therapy assessments which demonstrated the applicant's significant deterioration when challenged by tasks.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered marked impairments in three of four functional domains and declared her catastrophically impaired.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary an interim parenting time order for her two-year-old child, Isabelle, who resides with the applicant father.

The mother, now residing four hours away, sought unsupervised weekly parenting time in Sudbury or supervised by her mother/adult daughter.

The father proposed limited supervised access in Milton at a family visiting centre.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the mother's relocation, resolution of criminal charges, and the cessation of previous supervision arrangements.

Emphasizing the child's best interests, particularly physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being, the court deemed the father's proposal ungenerous and impractical, while the mother's request for weekly travel was excessive for a young child.

The court ordered a hybrid approach: supervised parenting time at the maternal grandmother's alcohol-free home in Sudbury once a month for a weekend, and also supervised access at the Thrive Family Visiting Centre in Milton.

Remote parenting time provisions were also established.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking a specified schedule of regular parenting time with the older child (I.A., age 11) following a criminal charge laid against the applicant mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to suspend access due to COVID-19 concerns and the child's alleged reluctance.

The court found that while the child's views must be considered, they cannot be determinative when a parent seeks to restrict access without compelling justification.

The court rejected both the mother's proposal for suspension and the father's proposal for the detailed OCL-recommended schedule, instead crafting a modified temporary order reflecting the unique circumstances of the pandemic while maintaining meaningful parent-child contact.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a Registered Practical Nurse for failing to implement a facility's bowel protocol, assess, monitor, and document care for a patient who subsequently died of a colon infection.

The Member admitted to the allegations and that her conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered an oral reprimand, noting that the Member had already signed an undertaking to permanently resign from the College and never reapply.

The applicant sought post-104-week income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent argued the claim was barred by res judicata and the expiry of the limitation period, as a previous Tribunal decision had already denied the applicant's entitlement to these benefits.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the previous decision was a final judgment on the merits between the same parties.

Furthermore, the Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, noting the unreasonable delay, lack of bona fide intention to appeal, prejudice to the respondent, and lack of merit to the claim.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a determination of catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The central factual dispute was whether the applicant's blackouts were caused by the accident or were a pre-existing condition.

The Tribunal found that the blackouts were a symptom of accident-related PTSD, which was exacerbated by a subsequent near-miss incident.

The Tribunal awarded pre-104 week IRBs, finding the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment tasks.

However, post-104 week IRBs were denied as the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable alternative employment.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a Class 4 marked psychological impairment affecting her activities of daily living and adaptation.