Dr. D.

The worker, a truck driver, appealed the denial of initial entitlement for a left foot injury.

The worker alleged that they stepped in a puddle containing chemicals at a recycling facility, which caused a chemical burn to their left foot.

The worker's pre-existing diabetes complicated the healing process, leading to multiple infections and ultimately a below-the-knee amputation.

The Appeals Resolution Officer found that the evidence supported a diagnosis of a chemical burn and that the occupational exposure significantly contributed to the injury.

The Officer also found that the amputation was a significant deterioration clinically compatible with the original injury.

The appeal was allowed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $2,961.72 for a kinesiologist-supervised exercise program.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and could perform exercises independently.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating practitioners that supervision was required to avoid aggravating her impairments and to support her psychological well-being.

The applicant was awarded the claimed benefit.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's diagnosed psychological impairment removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal further held that the disputed chiropractic and psychological treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to assist with pain management and psychological recovery.

The applicant's claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was denied, as the respondent had relied reasonably on its insurer examination reports.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained psychological injuries, including adjustment disorder with anxiety and major depressive disorder, which removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a psychological assessment, psychological treatment, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, claims for further physiotherapy and a neurological assessment were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on the approved expenses.

This is a child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking a finding that a four-year-old child with significant developmental delays and special needs is in need of protection and should be made a crown ward for adoption.

The mother opposed the application and proposed placement with the paternal aunt under a supervision order.

The court found the child was in need of protection due to physical and emotional harm risks, including unsanitary home conditions, the mother's untreated mental health issues (including auditory hallucinations and depression), and the child's unaddressed special needs.

The court rejected both the mother's and paternal aunt's proposed plans as inadequate, finding neither capable of providing appropriate full-time care.

The court made a crown wardship order to enable adoption placement.

The applicant child sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child had a history of running away, medication non-compliance, and aggressive behaviour, and was diagnosed with a mental disorder related to prenatal alcohol exposure.

The Board applied the criteria for emergency admission under the governing child and family services legislation.

Finding that the child posed a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that no less restrictive treatment method was appropriate, the Board dismissed the application and ordered that the child remain in the secure treatment program.

The applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from a secure treatment program at the respondent facility.

The applicant argued that the criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were not met.

The Board reviewed the evidence, including the applicant's history of aggressive behaviour, a suicide threat, and a psychiatric admission summary.

The Board found that the applicant had a mental disorder, posed a risk of serious bodily harm, and required the secure treatment program.

The application for release was denied.

The Member, a registered nurse, admitted to engaging in a sexual relationship with a psychiatric patient while employed at a hospital.

The Discipline Committee found the Member committed professional misconduct by sexually abusing the patient and violating professional boundaries.

The Member brought a Charter challenge, arguing that the mandatory revocation penalty discriminated against her on the basis of a mental disability.

The panel dismissed the Charter challenge, finding insufficient evidence that the Member suffered from a mental disability that affected her functioning at the time of the misconduct.

The panel ordered the mandatory penalty of revocation of the Member's certificate of registration and a reprimand.