Dr. Ornstein

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide objective evidence of functional improvement or recommendations from her family doctor to support the need for further chiropractic treatment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's argument that the respondent failed to comply with the timelines in s. 38 of the Schedule, finding insufficient evidence of non-compliance.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and assessment services following a minor rear-end collision.

The insurer denied the physical treatments, arguing the applicant's physical injuries were minor and that he exhibited symptom magnification, though it accepted he suffered from psychological impairments and chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's impairments were primarily psychological rather than physical, and that further physical therapy would not be beneficial until his psychological issues were addressed through psychotherapy.

The requests for further orthopedic and functional assessments were also denied as redundant or premature without objective MRI evidence.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The adjudicator found the applicant was entitled to an income replacement benefit for the disputed period, as her subjective pain experience resulted in a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment as a production worker.

The adjudicator also approved two physiotherapy treatment plans and the cost of prescription medication, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Claims for the cost of a disability certificate and medical records were dismissed.

The adjudicator declined to order an award under O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer's decisions to withhold benefits were not unreasonable given the medical information available to it at the time.

Interest was awarded on all overdue payments.

The appellant landlords appealed a Board of Inquiry decision finding that their use of rent-to-income ratios to screen prospective tenants constituted constructive discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's findings that the sole use of such criteria disproportionately excluded protected groups and was not a bona fide requirement.

However, the Court amended the Board's forward-looking prohibition against using income criteria, noting that recent amendments to the Code and O. Reg. 290/98 now expressly permit landlords to use income information in specific ways.