Gün Köleoğlu

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired under Criterion 7 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal had concluded her whole person impairment rating was 49%, falling short of the 55% threshold.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's assessment of a 0% impairment for the spine and its correction of the upper extremity impairment calculation on reconsideration were reasonable and within its statutory authority to apply the AMA Guides.

The appellant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her catastrophic impairment benefits.

The Divisional Court found that while there was no breach of procedural fairness, the Adjudicator's findings regarding the appellant's whole person impairment under Criterion 6 of the AMA Guides were unreasonable.

Specifically, the Adjudicator unreasonably dismissed evidence of double vision, peripheral neuropathy, and medication side effects.

The court quashed the decision and remitted the matter to the LAT for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing his application for Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) as statute-barred.

The LAT found that the insurer's May 3, 2021 letter constituted a clear and unequivocal denial of benefits, triggering the two-year limitation period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's decision, finding no error in its application of the limitation period or its refusal to extend the time to appeal.

The court also rejected the appellant's arguments regarding discoverability and the impact of subsequent correspondence from the insurer.

The appellant sought an appeal and judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying him income replacement benefits under the 'any occupation' test and denying an extension of time to request reconsideration.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law or procedural unfairness in the adjudicator's handling of expert evidence, cross-examination, or factual findings.

The court held the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and dismissed the appeal and judicial review application.

The applicant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision holding him to a 2004 settlement of his motor vehicle accident claims.

The applicant argued the settlement was invalid because he initialed, rather than signed, the Statutory Disclosure Notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant's failure to sign the specific signature line was a technical and immaterial defect that did not invalidate the notice or allow him to rescind the agreement.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding the respondent eligible for funding for an attendant care benefit assessment.

The respondent suffered minor injuries in a motor vehicle accident but was removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing medical condition.

The insurer argued that because the injuries were minor, the respondent was excluded from attendant care assessments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's interpretation that once a claimant is removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing condition, they are no longer subject to the limits for minor injuries, and the test for services becomes what is reasonable and necessary.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, was found guilty of misconduct under the Police Services Act for unlawful arrest and excessive force during the G20 summit.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the misconduct findings but reduced the penalty to a one-month demotion.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the Commission erred in its standard of review and treatment of the Hearing Officer's credibility findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Commission's decision was reasonable and properly deferred to the Hearing Officer's factual and credibility determinations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission refusing to investigate an incident from 2006 where the applicant's brother was tasered by police.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission reasonably exercised its discretion not to proceed with an investigation given the passage of time and the extensive airing of the issues in prior court proceedings.

The court also found no error in the Commission's treatment of the evidence or any basis for allegations of an improper purpose.