Kevin Mitchell

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment (CAT) based on mental and behavioural disorders, and entitlement to a post-104-week income replacement benefit (IRB).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant sustained psychological impairments from the accident, she did not meet the Criterion 8 threshold for CAT, as she demonstrated only moderate impairments across the four spheres of functioning.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, preferring the respondent's multi-disciplinary assessment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing physical impairments, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish that his pre-existing right shoulder condition precluded recovery within the MIG, relying on an insurer's examination that found no residual impairment.

The Tribunal also rejected the chronic pain claim, noting the applicant continued to work and lacked functional impairment.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the psychological impairment claim, preferring the insurer's in-person assessments over the applicant's virtual assessment and self-reporting.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG.

The applicant, a condominium owner, challenged the validity and enforcement of the condominium corporation's visitor parking rules, as well as chargebacks levied against her for alleged violations.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the visitor parking rules valid but determined that several chargebacks issued prior to the enactment of a specific rule, or without proper basis, were invalid.

The Tribunal ordered the condominium corporation to reimburse the applicant $1,880.99 for the invalid chargebacks and dismissed the applicant's harassment claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he was not catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons, displaying bias, and failing to address production order breaches, and that the adjudicator made errors of law and fact in assessing his psychological and social functioning impairments.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the adjudicator provided clear and adequate reasons, no reasonable apprehension of bias was established, and the adjudicator's weighing of the expert evidence and application of the legal test for marked impairment were reasonable and free of error.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical, rehabilitation, and non-earner benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries warranted removal from the MIG because she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment.

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

However, the applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as she failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal also declined to order an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the respondent did not unreasonably withhold or delay payments.

The applicant, a unit owner, challenged the respondent condominium corporation's visitor parking rules, enforcement practices, and record retention methods.

The applicant had repeatedly parked her vehicle in visitor parking spaces, leading the respondent to issue compliance letters and a chargeback for legal fees.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the visitor parking rules were reasonable and enforceable, and that the applicant had violated them.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's enforcement practices were reasonable and denied the applicant's request for records, as it was made to avoid enforcement.

The applicant was ordered to comply with the parking rules and pay $2,600 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Schedule and claimed entitlement to a post-104 income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment, as he did not demonstrate a marked impairment in at least two of the four functional domains, specifically finding his social functioning was compatible with some useful functioning.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's claim for a post-104 IRB, finding that the combination of his physical, psychological, cognitive, and visual impairments resulted in a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

Interest was awarded on the overdue IRB payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant also claimed entitlement to an income replacement benefit and several treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating her injuries were beyond minor, or that a pre-existing condition or chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

As the applicant provided no submissions or evidence regarding her inability to work, the claim for an income replacement benefit was dismissed.

Because the $3,500 MIG limit was already exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) brought disciplinary proceedings against the respondent for preparing deficient structural drawings and providing professional engineering services without a valid Certificate of Authorization.

The respondent admitted to the allegations in an Agreed Statement of Facts, acknowledging that the drawings lacked material data, cited an outdated Building Code, and failed to make reasonable provision for the safeguarding of the public.

The Discipline Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, finding it did not meet the high threshold for rejection established in Anthony-Cook.

The respondent was reprimanded, his licence was suspended for two months, he was fined $2,500, and a restriction was placed on his licence requiring the successful completion of structural engineering examinations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found him statute-barred from pursuing a claim for occupational and physical therapy treatment plans and denied 10 other treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator made several errors of fact and law, including misinterpreting section 44 of the Schedule and failing to consider the severity of his concussion.

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration in part, correcting a factual error regarding the applicant's attendance at an insurer's examination and awarding a $200 form completion fee.

However, the adjudicator found no errors of law or fact that would change the outcome of the remaining dismissed claims.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant failed to attend scheduled insurer examinations (IEs) and that the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with claims related to two issues because he failed to attend the required IEs without a reasonable explanation.

For the remaining treatment plans, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to establish that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest, costs, and an award were denied.

The respondent insurer brought a motion to bar the applicant from proceeding with his claim for income replacement benefits due to his failure to attend insurer's examinations under section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the notices of examination provided by the respondent were deficient as they lacked specific medical and other reasons for the examinations, failing to comply with section 44(5).

Consequently, the applicant was not barred from proceeding with his claim.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on an icy driveway immediately after exiting her vehicle.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the two-part Greenhalgh test and found that while the incident arose from the ordinary use of a vehicle, the dominant feature causing the injury was the icy driveway, not the use or operation of the vehicle.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the respondent.

The applicant had long-term disability (LTD) benefits available through his employer but failed to apply for them within the required 90-day limitation period, resulting in a denial of his LTD claim.

The respondent sought to deduct the LTD benefits from the applicant's IRBs, arguing that the applicant's failure to apply on time should be treated as if he had foregone the benefits.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the applicant had an obligation to diligently pursue collateral benefits and that the accident benefits insurer is the payor of last resort.

The respondent was permitted to deduct the LTD benefits that would have been available had the applicant applied in time.

The applicant insurer brought a preliminary issue hearing to determine if the respondent was involved in an 'accident' as defined under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent alleged he was struck by a vehicle while riding his bicycle.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of an independent police officer and the driver, finding that the vehicle was stationary and the respondent simply lost his balance and fell.

The Tribunal concluded the incident did not meet the purpose test, as the injuries did not arise out of the use or operation of an automobile.

The respondent was found not to have been involved in an accident.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claim for a psychological Treatment and Assessment Plan costing $3,588.18 following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made several errors of fact and law, including mischaracterizing the plan as an assessment rather than treatment, improperly weighing medical evidence from various doctors, and failing to consider the remedial nature of the Schedule.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal's underlying conclusion that the applicant did not suffer from a psychological condition requiring the claimed expense applied equally to both assessment and treatment.

The Chair also found no error in the Tribunal's weighing of the medical and affidavit evidence, nor any breach of procedural fairness.

The applicant sought payment for a neurocognitive assessment, a psychological assessment, and various other expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the neurocognitive assessment was reasonable as it was intended to help the applicant decide whether to bring a claim for catastrophic impairment, but capped the payable amount at $2,000 plus tax.

The claims for the psychological assessment and other expenses were dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, and the medical evidence provided by the applicant was found to be inconsistent and lacking credibility.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon his termination.

The applicant argued the release was void because the respondent breached the settlement agreement by failing to provide the final payment on time, and that he signed under economic duress.

The Tribunal found no evidence of economic duress amounting to coercion of will.

The Tribunal held that the failure to implement a term of the settlement does not permit a party to raise the underlying substantive issues at the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed weekly income benefits.

The insurer sought to deduct benefits the insured received from private disability insurance policies.

On appeal, the Director of Arbitrations held that the private insurance benefits were not 'payments for loss of income... under any income continuation benefit plan' within the meaning of s. 12(4)(b) of the SABS-1990, because they were not contingent on the insured being employed at the time of the accident or tied to a specific loss of income.

The insurer was ordered to pay $51,377.21 in arrears, with interest running from October 15, 2001, the date the insured first challenged the deductibility of the collateral benefits.

The insured was involved in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits.

A dispute arose regarding her entitlement to benefits beyond the 156-week mark and whether she had been overpaid due to the receipt of collateral benefits.

At arbitration, the insured argued for the first time during final submissions that her collateral benefits were not deductible.

The Arbitrator agreed and ordered the insurer to pay additional benefits.

On appeal, the Director of Arbitrations held that the Arbitrator erred in deciding the deductibility issue without giving the insurer an adequate opportunity to respond, as it was raised too late and constituted a denial of fairness.

The insurer's appeal was allowed, and the insured's appeal regarding interest was dismissed.