Sabrina Lucibello

The applicant sought entitlement to various treatment plans for home devices, a sleep system, workplace modifications, and kitchen devices following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal assigned little weight to the applicant's occupational therapist's recommendations due to a lack of contemporaneous assessment and failure to account for a subsequent accident.

Conversely, the Tribunal accepted the contemporaneous insurer's examination reports which concluded the treatments were not required.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant, a special needs student, was assaulted by another student while riding a school bus and subsequently suffered a stroke.

She applied for statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The assault was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, and the use or operation of the school bus was not the direct cause of the applicant's injuries.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain, a concussion, and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-reporting and the applicant's expert assessments inconsistent with the clinical notes of treating practitioners and the respondent's assessments.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied as the applicant's conduct was not frivolous or vexatious.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after fracturing her hip in a fall on Bay Street.

She had just exited an Uber vehicle and was crossing the street to reach a GO Station.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the incident was not an "accident" under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the two-part Greenhalgh framework.

While the incident met the purpose test, it failed the causation test.

The Tribunal found that the dominant feature of the incident was the applicant slipping and falling on the street, and the operation of the Uber vehicle was merely ancillary.

The application was dismissed.

Following the resolution of insurance coverage issues and the dismissal of the action against the uninsured motorist carrier, the plaintiffs sought costs thrown away on a substantial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the tortfeasor's insurer denied coverage for tactical reasons, necessitating a separate action.

The court rejected this argument, finding the insurer's denial of coverage due to lack of cooperation from its insured was reasonable.

The court awarded the plaintiffs partial indemnity costs of $3,500 plus $500 in disbursements for the extra discovery steps required, payable in the cause.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of a mental health disability after his employment counsellor repeatedly attempted to schedule him for coaching sessions despite his request for a new counsellor.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the counsellor's actions to the applicant's disability and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the summary hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.