Jodie Therrien

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for income replacement benefits and treatment plans.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by applying incorrect legal tests and requiring corroboration of his OCF-3 medical certificate.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to identify any breach of procedural fairness and that the original decision correctly applied the eligibility tests set out in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of functional impairment from chronic pain or a psychological diagnosis to warrant removal from the MIG.

As the applicant remained within the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs), a psychological assessment, and physiotherapy services under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment to qualify for IRBs, noting his second absence from work coincided with parental leave.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not provide sufficient medical evidence to prove the proposed psychological assessment and physiotherapy services were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairments, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for physiotherapy, a chronic pain assessment, and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary based on medical evidence and contemporaneous reporting.

A treatment plan for an orthopaedic assessment was denied as the applicant failed to establish it was warranted.

The applicant was also awarded interest on overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of recent medical evidence supporting ongoing soft-tissue injuries and relying on an insurer's examination which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits and brought a preliminary motion to strike the applicant's reply submissions for improperly splitting her case.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the reply submissions properly responded to the respondent's arguments.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to pre-104 or post-104 IRBs, as she failed to establish a substantial or complete inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as an accountant.

The Tribunal also denied the disputed treatment plans for transportation and physiotherapy services, finding the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary onus to demonstrate they were reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for physiotherapy, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that one claim was statute-barred.

The Tribunal found that the claim for a February 2020 treatment plan was statute-barred as the application was filed beyond the two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain with a functional impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the applicant remained in the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, though he was entitled to the remaining $529.55 of his MIG limit.

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 she should be removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing condition from a fall two months prior to the accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her pre-existing condition precluded her recovery within the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for chiropractic services and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a non-earner benefit and medical benefits for physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide submissions or evidence to establish entitlement to the non-earner benefit.

Furthermore, the adjudicator determined that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline limit, as there was insufficient evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to warrant removal from the guideline.

Consequently, the claims for physiotherapy treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to physical and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, preferring the respondent's in-person medical assessments which demonstrated the applicant continued to engage in the vast majority of his pre-accident activities, including household chores and personal care.

The applicant's claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed as no benefits were payable.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a concussion, psychological impairment, and Chronic Pain Syndrome.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a diagnosis of a concussion or a psychological impairment, noting the applicant's pre-existing anxiety and lack of objective testing.

The Tribunal also rejected the chronic pain claim, finding the applicant did not meet the criteria under the AMA Guides and lacked evidence of functional impairment.

As the injuries were deemed predominantly minor, the application for disputed treatment plans beyond the MIG limit was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment which aligned with the family physician's records.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not establish chronic pain with functional limitations, noting he met at most one of the six criteria under the AMA Guides.

As the injuries were predominantly minor, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, an award, interest, or costs.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), non-earner benefits, and funding for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plans were denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and denied the request for a section 10 award.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on October 21, 2021.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal on October 26, 2023, five days after the two-year limitation period expired.

The applicant requested an extension of time under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide submissions on his intention to appeal within the limitation period or the merits of his appeal, and therefore did not meet his burden to establish that the justice of the case warranted an extension.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.