Mai T. Nguyen

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

The respondent denied funding for chiropractic services and a chronic pain assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain syndrome, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate a functional impairment caused by chronic pain, noting her injuries were uncomplicated soft-tissue injuries that were improving.

The application was dismissed, and the requested benefits and interest were denied.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dated December 17, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed by the parties, the court made no order as to costs.

The plaintiff developer built stacked townhouses and applied for a condominium exemption under the Condominium Act to bypass Planning Act requirements.

The City granted the exemption but imposed a condition prohibiting the units from being used as boarding or rooming houses.

The developer sued, arguing the City lacked authority to impose conditions and challenging barrier-free accessibility requirements.

The motion judge struck the condition but upheld the accessibility requirements.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the City had broad authority under the Condominium Act and Municipal Act to impose conditions on exemption approvals to protect health and safety.

The developer's cross-appeal regarding accessibility requirements was dismissed as moot.

The applicant sought an extension of the two-year limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to dispute the termination of his income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test from Manuel v. Registrar, considering the applicant's intention to appeal, the length of the delay, prejudice to the insurer, and the merits of the appeal.

Finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a clear intention to appeal within the limitation period and provided little evidence on the merits, the Tribunal declined to extend the time.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed as out of time.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found that the applicant's dispute of the termination of his income replacement benefit was filed within the two-year limitation period.

The Vice-Chair found that the adjudicator made a significant error of law and fact by failing to apply the deemed receipt provisions for the denial letter and by ignoring the date the applicant's counsel received the insurer's claims file.

The Vice-Chair determined the actual denial date was February 15, 2015, meaning the application was filed late.

The Vice-Chair also rejected the argument that the limitation period was extended by a pending mediator's report.

However, as the applicant raised the issue of a limitation extension under section 7 of the LAT Act for the first time in responding submissions, the insurer was granted 15 days to provide written submissions on that issue.

The appellant sought a stay of an arbitrator's order requiring her to pay the respondent's legal expenses, pending her appeal of the decision denying her attendant care benefits.

The Director's Delegate applied the Armstrong criteria and found that the appeal was bona fide, had apparent substance regarding the interpretation of subsection 3(8) of the SABS, and that the appellant would suffer undisputed hardship if the stay was refused.

The Delegate also noted the arbitrator failed to receive submissions on expenses, raising natural justice concerns.

The stay of the expense order and the arbitration expense hearing was granted.