Norma Priday

The applicant condominium corporation applied to the Tribunal for an order requiring the respondent to permanently remove her dog from her unit, citing a breach of the condominium's rules.

The respondent argued the dog was an emotional support animal required for her mental health disability and requested an accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence provided by the respondent sufficiently established a mental disability under the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, allowing the respondent to keep her dog as an accommodation, and declined to award costs to the applicant.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application to enforce a no-pet provision against the respondent.

The respondent's counsel requested an adjournment of the hearing due to medical issues and upcoming treatments.

The applicant did not provide submissions opposing the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the medical concerns constituted a sufficient basis to delay the hearing, and rescheduled the matter to November 29, 2023.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion to restore a personal injury action to the trial list seven years after it had been struck.

The Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff seeking restoration under rule 48.11 bears the burden of showing both an acceptable explanation for the litigation delay and that the defendant would suffer no non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

On the record, there was no satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay, and the respondent demonstrated actual prejudice arising from unavailable medical records, the destruction of discovery recordings, and faded witness memory.

Motions to adduce fresh evidence were also dismissed because the proposed evidence could not reasonably have affected the result.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against the Toronto Transit Commission for being out of time.

The Tribunal found the applicant knew of the alleged discriminatory acts by 1994, despite his claim of discovering them in 2010, and thus the delay was not in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice in the Tribunal's use of a written hearing for a jurisdictional issue, and holding that the Tribunal's decisions on timeliness and reconsideration were reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) decision that denied him temporary disability benefits and found no permanent impairment from a workplace accident.

The applicant argued WSIAT erred by relying on a general medical discussion paper, failing to consult a medical advisor, and improperly weighing the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding WSIAT's decision was reasonable, supported by the applicant's own medical records showing pre-existing back pain, and that WSIAT, as an expert tribunal, was not required to consult a medical advisor.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld an arbitrator's order requiring the insurer to pay the claimant approximately $4,350 for attendant care and housekeeping services.

The insurer argued the arbitrator erred by relying on an excerpt from a medical report and by judging the claimant's credibility solely on her demeanour.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the excerpt was properly in evidence as part of a larger report filed by the insurer, and that the arbitrator reasonably weighed credibility in the context of the evidence as a whole.

The standard of review applied was reasonableness.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a FSCO Director's Delegate, who had revoked an Arbitrator's award of statutory accident benefits and ordered a new hearing on the basis of inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court determined that the standard of review for the adequacy of reasons is correctness.

The Court found that the Arbitrator's reasons were sufficiently thorough to explain her rejection of the insurer's medical expert and her acceptance of the applicant's evidence.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Director's Delegate's decision was set aside, and the Arbitrator's decision was restored.

The Insurer brought an Application for Variation of an arbitration order that had granted the Applicant $380 for treatment and a $200 special award.

The Applicant did not attend the variation hearing.

The Insurer introduced documentary evidence proving that it had paid the $380 for treatment shortly after it was approved by the Designated Assessment Centre.

The Arbitrator found that the Insurer did not unreasonably deny or delay payment, and therefore the special award was not warranted.

The Arbitrator revoked the $380 treatment award and the $200 special award.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision awarding the respondent attendant care and housekeeping benefits following a motor vehicle accident on a TTC bus.

The insurer argued the arbitrator breached natural justice by relying on an excerpt of an occupational therapy report contained within a DAC report, and erred in finding the respondent credible despite her contradictory evidence regarding income replacement benefits.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of natural justice as the insurer was aware of the report and could have called its author.

The Delegate also found no error of law in the arbitrator's credibility assessment, as it was based on the totality of the evidence and the inherent plausibility of the respondent's claim for assistance.

The insurer sought $450 in arbitration expenses following a split decision where the applicant's claim for income replacement benefits and the insurer's claim for repayment were both dismissed.

The arbitrator found that the applicant enjoyed relatively little success, as her claim was worth significantly more and occupied most of the hearing time.

The insurer was awarded $450 in partial costs, payable only as a setoff against any future recovery by the applicant in another legal proceeding against the insurer.

The applicant, a public transit passenger, sought statutory accident benefits for soft tissue injuries sustained when his streetcar collided with a truck.

He claimed over $13,000 for chiropractic treatment and the cost of an examination report.

The arbitrator found that the applicant significantly exaggerated his injuries, relying on surveillance evidence that contradicted his severe complaints.

The treating chiropractor's evidence was rejected as unreliable.

However, based on an independent assessment recommendation, the arbitrator awarded $380 for four treatment sessions.

A $200 special award was also granted because the insurer unreasonably denied payment for those four recommended sessions.

The applicant was struck by a bus and claimed ongoing income replacement benefits for soft tissue injuries.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim, finding the applicant lacked credibility because she had returned to part-time work and full-time college studies involving physical activity without disclosing this to health assessors.

The insurer's claim for repayment of $1,741.28 in benefits was also dismissed because the insurer failed to provide the required repayment notice within twelve months.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits after allegedly being injured while a passenger on a TTC bus that was struck from behind by a car.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant could not prove he was a passenger on the bus at the time of the accident.

Following a hearing on this preliminary issue, the arbitrator found the applicant and his witness to be credible, noting their evidence was consistent with the bus driver's testimony and occurrence report.

The arbitrator concluded on a balance of probabilities that the applicant was a passenger on the bus and was involved in an accident as defined in the Schedule.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision awarding the claimant non-earner, medical, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits following a bicycle-streetcar collision.

The central issue at arbitration was whether the claimant's post-accident decline was caused by the accident or the natural progression of a pre-existing polyneuropathy.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing, finding that the arbitrator failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the insurer's medical evidence and accepting the claimant's medical evidence on the issue of causation.

The applicant was injured while riding a public transit bus that braked sharply.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits based on medical examinations indicating she could return to work.

The arbitrator found the applicant failed to provide medical evidence to rebut the insurer's assessments and dismissed the claim for ongoing income replacement benefits.

However, the arbitrator awarded attendant care and housekeeping benefits for a limited period, finding the applicant's evidence of needing such services credible up to the date of a designated assessment centre evaluation.

The insurer was ordered to pay the applicant's arbitration expenses and interest on overdue benefits.

The insurer requested a hearing to determine its entitlement to expenses following an arbitration proceeding where the applicant successfully proved an accident occurred but failed to establish entitlement to the claimed statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator applied the criteria under Regulation 664 and found that, given the mixed success of the parties and the inapplicability of other criteria, the most appropriate result was for each party to bear its own expenses.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, housekeeping expenses, and assessment costs, following an incident on a TTC streetcar.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she sustained an impairment preventing her from working or performing housekeeping tasks.

The applicant's evidence lacked detail and was contradicted by medical records, employment documents, and the assessment reports themselves.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after falling while attempting to board a TTC bus.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 2(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence credible, concluding that the closing of the bus door and the bus pulling away caused her to lose her balance and fall.

The arbitrator held that the injuries were directly caused by the use or operation of an automobile, satisfying the definition of an accident.

The applicant claimed to have been injured while riding a TTC streetcar and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied benefits, claiming the accident did not occur, and argued the applicant was precluded from arbitration for failing to attend insurer's examinations.

On a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator found that the insurer failed to make reasonable efforts to schedule the examinations at a convenient time, justifying the applicant's refusal to attend.

The arbitrator also found the applicant to be a credible witness and concluded that she was injured in an accident as defined in the Schedule.

The applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitration decision finding that the respondent was injured in an 'accident' as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Director of Arbitrations allowed the appeal, finding that the Arbitrator erred in law by shifting the burden of proof to the insurer to prove that an accident did not occur.

The Director held that the insured bears the burden of proving they fit within the scope of coverage.

The arbitration order was rescinded and the matter was referred back for a new hearing before a different arbitrator.