The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological condition, including an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for a psychological assessment and one physiotherapy plan supported by clinical notes, but denied a second physiotherapy plan and a psychological services plan due to a lack of supporting evidence.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

Fernandez Arpajon v. Pembridge Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 10785

Psychologist · psychology · Retained by Applicant

SC

IBI was therapy, not an educational placement the Tribunal could require.

Parents appealed special education placement decisions maintaining that the child with severe autism required a placement consisting of intensive behavioural intervention rather than the Board's ASD/PDD classroom.

The Tribunal held that it could hear the placement appeal, but drew a distinction between educational placement and therapeutic programming, concluding that IBI was therapy rather than education and could not be ordered in lieu of an educational program.

After reviewing expert and lay evidence, the Tribunal found the Board's placement developmentally appropriate, comprehensive, and supported by qualified staff and interdisciplinary resources.

The Tribunal further found that the parents had not proven regression or shown that the proposed IBI-based placement was superior.

The appeal was denied and the IPRC placement decisions were affirmed.

B. T. and B. T. v. Simcoe County District School Board, 2004 ONSET 4

Psychologist, Professor at Guelph University and in Private Practice · autism and clinical psychology · Retained by Applicant

BN

Brian P. Nolan

12 cases1986–2017

TH

Tom H. Houghton

OSET6 cases1984–1990

KW

Kenneth J. Weber

OSETUnanimous2 cases1986–1992

AW

Anne Keeton Wilson

OSETUnanimous1 case1987–1988

OSETAug 29, 1988

Appeal of student's multiple exceptionality identification dismissed; dual identification of autism and mental retardation upheld.

The parents of a child with severe autism and mental retardation appealed the school board's Identification, Placement and Review Committee (IPRC) decision identifying the child as having a multiple exceptionality ('Intellectual (Trainable Retarded) - Communication (Autism)').

The parents argued the child should be identified solely as 'Communication (Autism)' to ensure appropriate programming and placement.

The Tribunal heard evidence from multiple experts and educators, concluding that the child suffers from both severe mental retardation and severe autism.

The Tribunal found the multiple exceptionality identification to be correct and that the child's current placement and program were appropriate and meeting the child's needs.

The appeal was dismissed.

L. v. The Board of Education for the City of Windsor, 1988 ONSET 1

Head of the Autism Clinic and of Research at the Child and Family Studies Centre at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry · autism and pervasive developmental disorders · Retained by Respondent

DK

Administrative Law

Other Tribunals

Human Rights

Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule matters (SABS)

Dr. Mary Konstantareas

Head of the Autism Clinic and of Research at the Child and Family Studies Centre at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry

Since 1988

3

cases · 38 yrs · OSET, OLAT

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

3 total

JK

Juny Kim

In Private Practice3 cases2024–2025

NL

Neil Levine

OLAT0 cases2023–2026

OLATFeb 13, 2025

Applicant removed from Minor Injury Guideline due to psychological condition; partial treatment plans approved.

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

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