Emily Schatzker

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit and medical benefits for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The Tribunal also found the proposed medical benefits were not reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of objective medical evidence and contradictory expert reports.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits and income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the medical benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and paid IRBs at a rate of $59.00 per week rather than the $800.00 claimed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained psychological injuries, removing him from the MIG, but dismissed the claim for the disputed treatment plan as it was not shown to be reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to prove his self-employment income and losses to support an IRB quantum of $800.00 per week, preferring the respondent's calculation of $59.00 per week.

Claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

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

In a supplementary decision following a reconsideration order, the adjudicator redetermined whether the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and whether she was entitled to income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's chronic pain did not affect her functionality, relying on surveillance evidence, Ontario Works applications indicating no work restrictions, and the respondent's medical assessments.

The evidence of the applicant's occupational therapist was rejected as unreliable.

Consequently, the adjudicator concluded the injuries fell within the MIG and dismissed the claims for IRBs, medical benefits, and interest.

The applicant and respondent both requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries.

The applicant sought reconsideration based on new evidence, specifically a chronic pain report and an MRI.

The adjudicator dismissed the applicant's request, finding the new evidence could have reasonably been obtained prior to the hearing.

The respondent requested reconsideration because the original decision failed to address its request for costs.

The adjudicator granted the respondent's reconsideration request to address the costs issue, but ultimately declined to award costs, finding the applicant's conduct was not vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident self-employment in renovation and landscaping.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence demonstrating that his accident-related impairments prevented him from working.

The medical evidence primarily showed minor contusions and soft tissue injuries, and an insurer's examination concluded he did not suffer a substantial inability to work.

The application for IRBs, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for an occupational therapy assessment, physiotherapy, chiropractic treatment, massage therapy, and craniosacral therapy.

The respondent denied the claims.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the occupational therapy assessment was not reasonable and necessary as there was no evidence of attendant care needs.

The Tribunal also found that the proposed physiotherapy, chiropractic, and massage treatments were either a duplication of previously approved services or lacked compelling contemporaneous evidence.

Finally, the claims for craniosacral therapy were dismissed because the expenses were incurred before a treatment plan was submitted, contrary to section 38(2) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her physical and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's physical injuries were uncomplicated sprains and strains treatable within the MIG, and she failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment.

Furthermore, the applicant did not prove that her psychological impairments were caused by the subject accident rather than other significant life stressors and previous accidents.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were limited to soft tissue strains and that she failed to prove any psychological impairment or pre-existing condition that would remove her from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG funding limit had already been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an urgent motion seeking 18 forms of relief, primarily an interlocutory injunction to stay the power of sale of her commercial condominium unit by the defendant condominium corporation.

The corporation had registered a lien and initiated power of sale proceedings due to the plaintiff's failure to pay common element fees.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction as no permanent injunction was sought in the underlying action.

Furthermore, the court held the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured an injunction, and dismissed her claims for Mareva and Mills injunctions, as well as her requests to strike the defendants' pleadings.

The applicant sought a Non-Earner Benefit (NEB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue that the claim was statute-barred under s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because the applicant failed to appeal the denial within the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's initial denial letter was clear and unequivocal, triggering the limitation period, which expired nearly a year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act due to the significant delay.

The NEB claim was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought funding for psychological treatment.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from psychological impairments, including PTSD and depression, which were exacerbated by the accident, justifying his removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the respondent's expert, who had alleged malingering.

The treatment plan for psychotherapy was deemed reasonable and necessary, and the applicant was awarded the claimed medical benefit with interest.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits pending receipt of further medical information.

The applicant brought a preliminary issue hearing arguing the insurer failed to comply with the 10-day response requirement under section 36 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and should therefore be ordered to pay the benefits pending the substantive hearing.

The Tribunal found the insurer responded within the required timeframe and reasonably requested further information under section 33.

The preliminary issue was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans and non-earner benefits, raising preliminary issues of limitation periods and non-compliance with insurer examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to dispute the 2017 treatment plans within the two-year limitation period and declined to extend the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act due to the applicant's failure to attend s. 44 insurer examinations.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was barred from receiving non-earner benefits due to this non-compliance.

Finally, the Tribunal concluded the 2018 and 2019 treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the respondent's chronic pain specialist over the applicant's chiropractor.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued her physical injuries, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were soft-tissue in nature and she failed to provide a medical diagnosis of chronic pain.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, finding no clinically significant accident-related psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans were found not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her claims for income replacement and medical benefits, finding her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the original adjudicator misapprehended key evidence from the applicant's family physician and occupational therapist, and provided inadequate reasons that failed to meet the standards of justification, transparency, and intelligibility set out in Vavilov.

The matter was referred back to the original adjudicator for a redetermination on the existing record.

The applicant sought medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including reports from physiatrists and a psychologist, confirmed the applicant sustained soft tissue injuries consistent with the MIG.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent 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 applicant argued his injuries were outside the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological injuries, and that the respondent failed to provide timely notice of denial for one treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer from chronic pain or psychological injuries, and that the respondent's notice was compliant with the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued that her pre-existing conditions, including back pain, headaches, and congenital deafness, prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor in nature.

As the applicant had already exhausted the $3,500 limit under the MIG, her application for further medical benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines (MIG).

She claimed entitlement to ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a $23,581.00 medical benefit for assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were confined to the MIG, noting that her family doctor's records, surveillance evidence, and insurer's examinations contradicted her claims of chronic pain and functional limitation.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment, and denied the medical benefit as the proposed assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, claiming psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a psychological injury warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's psychological report because the test scores indicated minimal depression and anxiety, contradicting the psychologist's diagnosis.

The respondent's request for a $50 repayment due to an alleged overpayment was dismissed as there was no evidence of wilful misrepresentation by the applicant.