David Scott

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for an in-home assessment and chiropractic services.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence, including reports from the applicant's own orthopedic surgeons, indicated that the applicant had plateaued and that conservative therapy would not be beneficial.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for chiropractic and massage therapy treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the plans based on insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant credible and held that the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary as they provided temporary pain relief that allowed the applicant to maintain workplace attendance and perform daily activities.

The Tribunal placed less weight on the insurer's examinations, finding them unhelpful or taken out of context.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the treatment plans and interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought reinstatement of income replacement benefits that were suspended by the respondent insurer after the applicant failed to provide requested medical documentation.

The Tribunal found that the insurer was entitled to suspend benefits under section 33(6) of the Schedule during the period of non-compliance.

However, because the applicant eventually provided the requested disability certificate and evidence of ongoing treatment on March 24, 2017, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to recommence payment of the benefits from that date.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle rollover accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The Insurer disputed the claim.

At arbitration, multiple medical experts testified regarding the Applicant's physical, mental, and behavioural impairments.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant sustained a Class 4 (marked) impairment in Concentration, Pace and Persistence, and Adaptability, relying on the Applicant's neuropsychologist.

The arbitrator also found that the Applicant would have met the 55% Whole Person Impairment threshold based on a combination of physical and psychological ratings.

The arbitrator concluded that the Applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment within the meaning of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The employer applied for a first contract direction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union raised preliminary objections, arguing the applications were premature and should be dismissed.

The Board found the applications were premature but cured the irregularity under section 123 of the Act.

The Board further determined that the applications were properly governed by the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act (PSLRTA), which required the matter to be heard by a single vice-chair.

Ultimately, the parties concluded collective bargaining and ratified a Memorandum of Agreement, prompting the employer to seek leave to withdraw the applications.

The Board granted leave to withdraw.

The applicant union sought to include a warranty clerk and a cashier in the bargaining unit of service and parts department employees.

The respondent employer argued they were office staff and should be excluded.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board examined the duties, supervision, and working conditions of the two employees.

Applying the community of interest criteria, the Board found that their work was primarily clerical and their functional coherence and interdependence lay with the general accounting office rather than the production employees.

Consequently, the Board excluded both employees from the bargaining unit.