Dr. White

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for occupational therapy, an optometry assessment, and a gym membership.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had proven on a balance of probabilities that the claimed treatment plans and assessments were reasonable and necessary to treat her concussion and psychological symptoms.

The Tribunal placed less weight on the insurer's examination reports.

The applicant was awarded the claimed benefits and interest, but her claim for an award was dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to defrauding her employer of over $219,000 over a five-year period using three separate methods, including forging a colleague's signature on cheques.

The Crown sought an 18-23 month custodial sentence with restitution and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a one-year custodial sentence, finding that a conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the fundamental purposes of sentencing, particularly denunciation and deterrence in cases involving breach of trust.

The court also imposed restitution orders and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident in November 2009.

She sought medical, caregiver, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence to be vague, insubstantial, and prone to exaggeration.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the insurer's occupational therapist, who observed the applicant in her home and concluded she did not suffer a substantial inability to perform caregiving or housekeeping tasks.

The applicant failed to prove her entitlement to the claimed benefits on a balance of probabilities.

The application was dismissed, with the issues of a special award and expenses deferred.

The applicant, a restaurant cook, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant claimed he remained disabled due to dizziness caused by the accident.

The arbitrator accepted the uncontradicted medical evidence of an otolaryngologist who diagnosed a post-traumatic labyrinthine concussion.

Finding that the applicant's dizziness prevented him from performing the demanding and hazardous tasks of a cook in a busy kitchen, the arbitrator concluded the applicant was substantially unable to perform his essential tasks.

The insurer was ordered to pay income replacement benefits for the disputed period, along with interest and expenses.

The applicant, a passenger on a TTC bus involved in a collision, sought statutory accident benefits including weekly benefits, housekeeping expenses, and a special award.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence unreliable and fraught with misrepresentations, preferring the insurer's medical evidence that the applicant was malingering and did not suffer from chronic pain syndrome or a disabling disc injury.

The claims for benefits were dismissed.

Finding the arbitration to be an abuse of process due to the applicant's deliberate misrepresentations, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay $1,000 in expenses to the insurer.

The applicant, a self-employed house painter, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until July 1993.

He sought ongoing weekly income benefits, claiming he was unable to work due to headaches, dizziness, and musculoskeletal pain.

The arbitrator reviewed extensive medical and functional capacity evidence, concluding that the applicant suffered from soft tissue injuries and physical deconditioning, but was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's claim of chronic pain syndrome, finding it unsupported by the weight of the medical evidence.

Furthermore, the arbitrator held that the insurer was not obligated under section 281(3) of the Insurance Act to pay benefits during a work-hardening program, as the mediator's report did not record a final offer to that effect.

The application for ongoing benefits was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to repay interim benefits, though he was awarded his reasonable arbitration expenses.