Dr. Finlayson

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to two treatment plans for chiropractic, massage, and physiotherapy services.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by declining to consider clinical notes and records, and erred in fact and law by finding the benefits of the therapy unclear.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness because the applicant failed to comply with a Case Conference Report and Order requiring pinpoint references to evidence.

The Tribunal also found no error of law or fact, noting that the hearing adjudicator properly weighed the medical evidence, including a section 44 physiatry assessment, and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-litigate the weight assigned to evidence.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision granting the applicant entitlement to a chronic pain assessment.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred by finding that only psychologists and psychiatrists could provide expert opinion evidence on chronic pain, thereby improperly discounting the evidence of its general practitioner and orthopaedic surgeon.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding the Tribunal erred in its treatment of the medical experts.

Upon rehearing the issue, the Vice-Chair weighed the competing medical evidence and concluded that the applicant's ongoing reports of pain and diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder provided reasonable grounds to warrant a chronic pain assessment.

The treatment plan was deemed reasonable and necessary.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and seeking placement in the care of their father subject to supervision.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking custody of both children and suspension of the father's access.

The court found that the children had suffered emotional harm as a result of high-conflict parenting and the mother's mental health and substance abuse issues.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial on either the protection finding or the appropriate disposition.

The children were placed in the father's care with supervised access to the mother, with specific terms addressing the mother's mental health treatment, alcohol abuse aftercare, and a re-unification assessment and counselling process for the older child.

The applicant, who sustained a severe brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, sought Education Disability Benefits (EDBs) for the period of July 12 to July 15, 1996, which marked 104 weeks post-accident.

The insurer had terminated EDBs just prior to this date.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to continue his specific pre-accident educational path, despite his efforts to attend university part-time with accommodations.

The arbitrator also found that the applicant suffered a partial inability to carry on a normal life.

Furthermore, the arbitrator ruled that under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, an insured only needs to demonstrate a partial inability to carry on a normal life at the exact 104-week mark to be entitled to a Loss of Earning Capacity (LEC) benefits offer, rejecting the insurer's argument that complete inability was required.