Athina Ionita

The applicant, a minor, sought statutory accident benefits for psychological injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident involving her cousin.

The respondent insurer denied benefits, arguing the applicant was not an 'insured person' under the Schedule because cousins are not listed family members.

The Tribunal applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation and found that the applicant's mother had a de facto parent-child relationship with the cousin, making the applicant and the cousin 'sisters' for the purposes of the Schedule.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant is an insured person and eligible for benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit (IRB), attendant care benefits, and payment for treatment plans.

The respondent stopped paying the IRB based on an accounting report that deducted speculative Canada Pension Plan Disability (CPP-D) amounts.

The Tribunal found that vacation pay and pre-accident earnings should be included in the IRB calculation, and that speculative CPP-D amounts could not be deducted, entitling the applicant to an ongoing IRB.

The Tribunal denied the claim for attendant care benefits because the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred.

The Tribunal approved an in-home occupational therapy assessment as reasonable and necessary, but denied a small balance for physiotherapy services that exceeded the maximum hourly rate.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed, but interest was awarded on overdue benefits.

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

The insurer raised preliminary issues, arguing the applicant was statute-barred for missing the two-year limitation period and for failing to attend an insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found the application was timely because the limitation period expired on a weekend, extending it to the next business day.

The Tribunal also found the notice of examination was deficient, excusing the applicant's non-attendance.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal denied the claim for a sleep study assessment but granted the claim for an interdisciplinary chronic pain assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary given the applicant's chronic pain and history of addictions.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payment, but a claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant partially entitled to physical therapy treatments, a chronic pain program, and a social work assessment, as well as interest on overdue payments.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to PRP and Botox injections, as there was insufficient evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

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

The respondent denied various benefits, including non-earner benefits and several treatment plans, and raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding due to non-attendance at an insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not statute-barred because the missed examination had been rescheduled.

On the merits, the Tribunal awarded non-earner benefits for a closed period, finding the applicant's pain practically prevented her from engaging in her nursing studies and pre-accident activities until she successfully resumed a full course load.

The Tribunal also partially approved several treatment plans for physiotherapy, chiropractic, massage, and occupational therapy assessments, while denying others for lack of evidence.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments, but the claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a concussion, which falls outside the MIG, and therefore removed him from the MIG limits.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for a psychological assessment and physiotherapy services, finding he failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence did not support a psychological impairment, and the applicant had repeatedly self-reported that physiotherapy provided no pain relief.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, including attendant care, housekeeping, and the cost of assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant entitled to a reduced amount of attendant care benefits ($448.49 per month) for feeding, but denied claims for dressing, shaving, mobility, and other items.

The Tribunal also found the applicant entitled to housekeeping benefits, but only payable from September 2022 due to a lack of accounting for prior incurred expenses.

Claims for assessment costs, a special award, and costs were dismissed.

The Tribunal also dismissed a preliminary motion to state a case for contempt regarding the insurer's surveillance.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged that she experienced unreasonable noise from the unit above hers following a renovation and that the condominium corporation failed to enforce its flooring rules.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal reviewed acoustical testing reports and noise logs, concluding that the evidence did not establish the noise was unreasonable or constituted a nuisance.

The Tribunal also found that the condominium corporation acted reasonably in investigating the complaints and working with the upstairs owner to mitigate potential noise sources, thereby complying with its rules.

The application was dismissed without costs.

Following a motion to strike where personal claims against the individual defendants were struck but the oppression remedy claim survived, the court held a case management conference to settle the terms of the order.

The court issued a file direction settling the order and providing procedural directions for the delivery of a fresh as amended statement of claim, subsequent pleadings, and discovery.

The applicant in a condominium noise dispute brought a motion to file a late acoustical report after the document disclosure deadline had passed.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing prejudice and delay, while the intervenor did not object.

The Tribunal applied the test for late evidence, finding that while the report could have been obtained earlier, its potential probative value regarding whether the noise was unreasonable justified its admission.

The Tribunal granted the motion, noting that the respondent would not be unduly prejudiced and could request an adjournment to respond.

The applicant brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation for an order requiring it to enforce its noise rule against the owner of the unit above hers.

The respondent brought a motion to add the upstairs unit owner as a respondent or intervenor.

The Tribunal found that while the corporation was the proper respondent, the upstairs unit owner could be directly impacted by the decision.

The Tribunal ordered that the upstairs unit owner be added as an intervenor.