Richard Startek

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

The applicant provided no objective medical evidence, such as clinical notes or an OCF-18, to support her claims.

She relied solely on a psychological report that did not address her ability to work or need for physiotherapy.

Conversely, the respondent's medical examiners opined that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform her employment tasks and that the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The appellants appealed a Work Order and an Implementation Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change regarding the deposit of contaminated soil.

Following Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement requiring the installation of a fill cap.

Upon confirmation that the fill cap was installed, the parties jointly requested the Tribunal to amend the Work Order by revoking Work Item No. 1 and to dismiss the appeals.

The Tribunal found the settlement to be in the public interest, amended the Work Order, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed a Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change order requiring them to assess and remediate contaminated soil deposited at a former rail line property.

Following Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement where the appellants agreed to implement a Risk Management Plan, including capping the soil and ongoing monitoring.

The parties requested provisional approval of the settlement and the withdrawal of one work item from the original order.

The Tribunal conditionally accepted the settlement agreement, finding it consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and the public interest, pending confirmation of the fill cap installation.

The moving party brought a motion to change seeking to vary a prior custody order so that the child could reside with him in a different community.

The court found that a material change in circumstances existed because the moving party had relocated and the teenage child had expressed a wish to live with him.

Applying the best interests analysis from Gordon v Goertz, the court considered the child’s wishes, stability of the current living environment, schooling, community ties, and the parents’ ability to meet the child’s needs.

The court determined that relocating the child would cause significant disruption and that the current custodial arrangement with the responding parent offered greater stability.

The motion to change was dismissed, with minor adjustments to the access provisions due to the parties’ geographic distance.

The member, a teacher, pleaded guilty to professional misconduct following a series of incidents involving verbal abuse, inappropriate language, and death threats directed at her school principal.

The Discipline Committee accepted the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered the member's teaching certificate suspended until September 1, 2003, and imposed conditions requiring psychiatric assessment, treatment, and the successful completion of an anger management course.