Emily Schatzker

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

The respondent denied the income replacement benefit and raised a preliminary issue that the applicant failed to submit a Disability Certificate (OCF-3) within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not submit the OCF-3 and provided no reasonable explanation for the delay.

Consequently, under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing for the income replacement benefit.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the doctrine of res judicata applied, as a previous Tribunal decision had already determined the applicant's injuries were minor.

The applicant failed to provide fresh evidence that would conclusively impeach the original results or demonstrate a deterioration in his condition.

Consequently, the application for benefits, an award, and interest was dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision finding the insured entitled to an attendant care assessment after being removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing condition.

The insurer argued that removal from the MIG did not equate to removal from the definition of a 'minor injury', and thus the insured was still barred from receiving an in-home assessment.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, holding that removal from the MIG removes all its constraints, including limits on goods and services, and that no error of law was made in the original decision.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, psychological injuries, and pre-existing conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting significant gaps in her medical records and assigning little weight to her expert assessors who were unaware of her pre-accident medical history.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for treatment plans, assessments, and a non-earner benefit, concluding the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing torn meniscus, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing knee injury was exacerbated by the accident or prevented his maximal medical recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claim for an orthopaedic assessment and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment and assessment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including independent medical examinations, supported that the applicant sustained soft tissue injuries falling within the MIG.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claims that she suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG, noting her return to work and lack of functional impairment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment and assessment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the respondent's medical assessments over the applicant's, and noting inconsistencies in the applicant's self-reporting.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as evidence showed she continued to engage in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal also determined that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline, rejecting claims that chronic pain or psychological impairments warranted removal from the guideline.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were not payable as the funding limits had been exhausted, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents.

After multiple adjournments, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled video hearing.

The applicant's daughter attended to advise he could not attend due to unforeseen circumstances, but the applicant could not be reached.

The adjudicator proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to s. 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant provided no submissions or evidence, he failed to meet his burden of proof.

The claims for benefits were dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was directed to proceed in writing.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly soft-tissue in nature, supported by normal diagnostic imaging.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's claim of psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's in-person psychological assessment over the applicant's telephone-based assessment.

As the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, the disputed treatment plans exceeding the $3,500 limit were not payable.

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

The respondent denied certain benefits, determining the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide corroborative objective medical evidence, such as clinical notes and records, to establish that her physical injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal placed no weight on a psychological report from an inactive practitioner, concluding the applicant did not establish a psychological impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans exceeding the limit were not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including assessments, physiotherapy, chiropractic treatment, and case management services.

The respondent removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions but denied the treatment plans as not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the attendant care assessment and physiotherapy were reasonable and necessary, supported by the applicant's ongoing physical impairments and recommendations from treating practitioners.

The claims for a psychological assessment, chiropractic treatment, and case management services were dismissed for lack of persuasive evidence.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding no unreasonable withholding or delay by the respondent.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and the cost of assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, dismissing the claim for non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal partially approved treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Claims for chiropractic treatment, dental services, replacement eyewear, and various assessments were dismissed due to insufficient evidence or failure to prove they were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

The applicants, condominium unit owners, brought an application against the condominium corporation and its board of directors seeking an oppression remedy and compliance orders under the Condominium Act.

The applicants alleged the board acted oppressively by ignoring communications, mishandling an elevator malfunction, and copying the applicants' employers on a warning letter regarding harassment.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the board acted reasonably and in good faith in response to the applicants' excessive communications.

The court also held that several of the applicants' claims were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and that defamation claims could not be brought via application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for an income replacement benefit and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact by failing to consider certain medical evidence, including hospital records and a psychological pre-screening report.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal had properly considered and weighed the evidence in the original decision.

The Vice-Chair noted that dissatisfaction with the weighing of evidence is not a valid ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 of the Common Rules.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing physical and psychological conditions, as well as chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and that he failed to prove his pre-existing conditions prevented maximal medical recovery.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of an accident-related psychological impairment or chronic pain syndrome.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, and claims for interest and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to chiropractic treatment, physiotherapy, a chronic pain assessment, and a chronic pain treatment program.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the impairments were not accident-related but due to pre-existing degenerative changes.

The Tribunal found that while the accident exacerbated the applicant's left shoulder and left knee conditions, the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence did not support the need for further physical therapy or the diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome.

The application was dismissed, and no award or interest was payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and that she failed to establish any pre-existing conditions or psychological impairments that would remove her from the MIG.

As the $3,500 funding limit for minor injuries had been exhausted, the claims for the disputed treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

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

The insurer denied several treatment and assessment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood as a result of the accident, removing her from the MIG.

Consequently, the 2020 psychological assessment and treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary.

However, the tribunal denied the physical and chronic pain treatment plans, finding that the applicant's ongoing physical complaints were related to pre-existing degenerative issues rather than the accident.

The tribunal also awarded the applicant $1,612.79 under section 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer unreasonably delayed payment by refusing to accept the uncontested psychological assessment report.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2016, sustaining a severe right elbow fracture.

He received income replacement benefits (IRBs) for the first 104 weeks, after which the respondent denied further IRBs.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, claiming a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment due to physical pain, fear of reinjury, and psychological impairments including depression and anxiety.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's physical injuries had healed and his psychological issues were primarily related to boredom and lack of motivation rather than a complete inability to work.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which demonstrated the applicant retained the functional capacity and vocational aptitude for alternative employment.