Lora Castellucci

The applicant sought to dispute the denial of income replacement and attendant care benefits more than two years after the insurer's denial.

The applicant had been found mentally incapable and required a litigation guardian.

The Tribunal held that the Limitations Act does not apply to its proceedings, but granted an extension of time under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999.

Applying the Blenheim factors, the Tribunal found the delay was reasonably explained by the applicant's incapacity and the time required for his litigation guardian to navigate multiple legal proceedings, with no prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after tripping and falling into an open service bay at a mechanic's garage while getting an emissions test.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the Amos and Greenhalgh tests and found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The applicant's use and operation of the vehicle had ceased when she walked away from it, and the netting over the open service bay acted as an intervening cause.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with breaching section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for using a cell phone while driving.

A police officer testified that he observed the defendant holding and scrolling through a cell phone while stopped at a red light.

The defendant testified that his phone was mounted on the dashboard and he only touched it to activate Bluetooth connectivity.

The trial judge convicted the defendant, finding the officer's evidence more credible.

The defendant appealed, arguing the trial judge's reasons failed to adequately explain the path to conviction and that the trial judge failed to apply the burden of proof correctly.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) proceeding under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts in the OLRB proceeding and the human rights application, specifically regarding the reasons for the termination of the applicant's employment.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding, including any reconsideration or judicial review.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

She initially elected to receive a non-earner benefit (NEB) but later sought to re-elect an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if she could re-elect.

The Tribunal found that under section 35(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, an election of benefits is final unless the insured has sustained catastrophic injuries, which the applicant had not.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments that her election was invalid or that promissory estoppel applied due to alleged erroneous advice from an adjuster.

The respondent's request for costs was denied as the applicant's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2004 and sought payment for two chiropractic treatment plans (OCF-18 and OCF-21) submitted near the end of the 10-year limitation period.

The insurer denied payment, arguing the treatments were not actually received within the 10-year period.

The arbitrator applied the test from Monks v. ING Insurance, finding that an expense is 'incurred' if its reasonable necessity and amount are determined with certainty before the limitation period expires.

Since the amounts were clearly outlined and reasonably certain before the 10-year mark, the expenses were deemed incurred and payable by the insurer.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on black ice in a parking lot.

She claimed she fell while exiting her vehicle and struck her head on the vehicle's step.

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

The arbitrator found the applicant's initial medical records did not mention her vehicle or hitting her head, and concluded she had safely exited the vehicle before slipping on the ice.

The arbitrator held that the ice was an intervening factor and the use or operation of the vehicle was not the direct cause of the impairment.

The application for arbitration was dismissed.

The applicant, injured in a 2003 motor vehicle accident, sought a determination of catastrophic impairment at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The insurer argued the arbitration should be stayed because the applicant had a pending 2005 court action for non-earner and medical benefits, and the issues should be joined to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The arbitrator found that the issues in the arbitration and the civil action were distinct, with different legal tests and relief sought.

The arbitrator concluded there was no risk of undue duplication, delay, or inconsistent results, and allowed the applicant to proceed with the arbitration.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought arbitration for unpaid physiotherapy and functional abilities evaluation expenses.

At the pre-hearing, the applicant's representative sought permission to withdraw because the applicant failed to pay a requested retainer.

The arbitrator permitted the withdrawal.

The applicant, who stated he did not understand the proceedings, agreed to the dismissal of his application provided the insurer's costs were limited to $50.

The arbitrator dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay $50 in costs.