April Snow

The appellant appealed the City of Oshawa's By-law 27-2024, which designated a property as a heritage property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment sine die to allow the City to seek instructions from City Council regarding Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die, noting that the parties will contact the Case Coordinator to initiate mediation and set the next hearing date when necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a pre-existing condition of diabetes, psychological impairments, a concussion, and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries fell outside the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans for psychological and chiropractic services were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence of a chronic pain diagnosis or functional impairment that would prevent recovery within the MIG.

Consequently, the proposed chiropractic treatment plans exceeding the MIG limit were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain program, psychological services, and driving rehabilitation.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant did not satisfy the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain, and the objective medical evidence, including an insurer's examination, did not support a psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and a special award were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for chiropractic treatment, massage therapy, and a chronic pain assessment.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the insurer's assessors over the applicant's chronic pain assessor, whose report was given little weight due to methodological flaws and contradictions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant argued that pre-existing psychological conditions and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery under the MIG.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's medical assessment that the injuries were predominantly minor.

The application for additional physiotherapy and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, claiming physical, psychological, and chronic pain impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

The medical records were sparse, there was no formal psychological diagnosis, and the evidence did not support a finding of chronic pain with functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 limit of the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of physical or psychological impairments requiring treatment beyond the MIG limits.

The disputed treatment plans and expenses were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for a non-earner benefit and medical and rehabilitation benefits (treatment plans).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its assessment of the evidence and failed to consider the totality of the medical reports.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate his case and had failed to meet the high threshold for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b).

The original decision was confirmed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's denial of a non-earner benefit and various treatment plans under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's knee injury, diagnosed as meralgia paresthetica by the insurer's own assessor, was not a minor injury under the Schedule, removing him from the MIG.

However, the applicant failed to establish entitlement to the non-earner benefit or the requested treatment plans, as the evidence did not show a complete inability to carry on a normal life or that the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to two treatment plans for physiotherapy and one for psychological services.

The adjudicator found the physiotherapy treatment plans reasonable and necessary, preferring the contemporaneous recommendations of the applicant's family doctor over the insurer's assessor.

However, the claim for psychological services was denied because the treatment was provided by a psychometrist, and the applicant failed to provide evidence of active supervision by a psychologist to justify billing at the higher psychologist rate.

The claim for an award under Regulation 664 was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue physiotherapy benefits.

The applicant sought payment for six treatment plans (OCF-18s) for chiropractic, massage, and physiotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the plans on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and the proposed treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered soft tissue injuries and a thumb ligament strain, but failed to establish that the ongoing facility-based treatment was effective or necessary.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not follow specific treatment recommendations from a specialist for his thumb injury, and that clinical records did not support ongoing debilitating chronic pain.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, or chronic pain.

The medical evidence, including insurer's examinations, demonstrated that the applicant had functional abilities to complete most activities of daily living.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied an attendant care assessment on the basis that the applicant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting a subsequent 2019 accident and a lack of medical evidence linking his ongoing impairments to the 2018 accident.

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

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's fractured finger was not a minor injury, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved four chiropractic treatment plans as reasonable and necessary, but denied a psychological assessment and a second disability certificate.

The applicant's claim for a special award was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant argued that a pre-existing condition of Ataxia was exacerbated by the accident, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that the pre-existing condition would preclude his recovery within the MIG.

The application for a chiropractic treatment plan and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment and a chronic pain assessment.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of objective medical evidence and the presence of pre-existing back issues that were not exacerbated by the accident.

The application was dismissed.