Dr. Gloria Fiati

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries, diagnosed as sprains, strains, and a partial tear, fell within the MIG definition.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's psychological assessment that the applicant did not suffer a psychological injury warranting diagnosis or treatment.

As the applicant was held to the MIG and had not exhausted the $3,500 limit, the claims for additional physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident involving a school bus.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), she was entitled to be removed from the MIG due to a psychological impairment, specifically post-traumatic stress disorder.

The applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as she failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, with evidence showing no significant difference in her pre- and post-accident activities.

The Tribunal approved a treatment plan for psychological services but denied other plans for chiropractic and orthopaedic assessments due to a lack of supporting evidence.

A claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was also dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG, noting inconsistencies in his self-reporting and preferring the insurer's psychological assessment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an income replacement benefit due to a lack of evidence regarding the applicant's employment and functional limitations.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a psychological condition and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence lacked objective testing and a diagnosis, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment which found no impairment.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of chronic pain causing functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG limits.

The accused, Ivan Marincic, was sentenced for dangerous driving simpliciter after a motor vehicle collision caused life-altering injuries to another driver.

The sentencing hearing addressed whether the court had jurisdiction to award damages or costs for serious Charter violations by police during Marincic's arrest.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to award civil damages or costs in a criminal proceeding, emphasizing that such remedies must be sought through civil actions.

Despite the severe police misconduct, a stay of proceedings was deemed inappropriate due to the seriousness of the offence and the victim's injuries.

As a remedy for the Charter violations, the court imposed a significantly reduced sentence of nine months, to be served as a conditional sentence.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired following a 2011 motor vehicle accident, sought resolution of a dispute over statutory accident benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to reimbursement for medical records requested by the respondent, as well as the cost of float therapy, preferring the evidence of the treating psychologists over the respondent's paper review.

Regarding attendant care benefits, the Tribunal awarded $975.24 per month, finding that while the applicant required assistance with feeding, hygiene, and basic supervision, his claims for skilled supervisory care to address depression and suicidal ideation were better addressed through psychological treatment.

The Tribunal declined to deem the attendant care expenses incurred or to order a special award, finding the insurer had not acted unreasonably in relying on its assessments.

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

The respondent denied the claims, relying on insurer's examinations that concluded the injuries were soft tissue in nature and fell within the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to prove her injuries warranted treatment outside the MIG, noting that her chiropractic expert's methodology lacked proven reliability and her psychological expert relied heavily on self-reporting.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

The Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority (RHRA) brought an urgent application seeking an order for In Touch Retirement Living for Vegetarians/Vegans Inc. and Elaine Lindo (the Respondents) to cease operating as an unlicensed retirement home.

The Respondents filed a cross-application challenging the enforcement of the Retirement Homes Act, 2010 on Charter grounds and requesting consideration for a licence.

The court granted the RHRA's application, finding a continuous breach of the Act and dismissing the cross-application due to procedural deficiencies and lack of legal merit for the Charter claims.

Ancillary relief was also granted to ensure the safe transfer of residents.

The applicant sought medical benefits for physiotherapy and assessments following a rear-end collision.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 financial cap had been reached.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries, including alleged chronic pain and psychological impairments, fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence that the applicant's pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery under the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents in 2007.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence to be unreliable due to poor recall and contradictions with documentary evidence, including Ontario Works records showing he had returned to work.

Relying on the medical evidence, particularly the applicant's orthopaedic surgeon, the arbitrator concluded the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment for a limited period.

The applicant was awarded income replacement benefits from July 7, 2009, to August 1, 2010, but his claims for various assessment costs and a special award were dismissed.