Nathan Mario Fabiano

The applicant sought entitlement to a $2,400 chiropractic assessment following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit.

The Tribunal found that the treatment plan was submitted more than 260 weeks after the accident, barring the claim under section 20(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Because no substantive benefits remained in dispute, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline as a standalone issue.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, including funding for physiatry, chronic pain, and neurological assessments, as well as assistive devices.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis of a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence and the application of the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting the absence of contemporaneous medical records corroborating the applicant's self-reported chronic pain.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent complied with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to psychological and physical rehabilitation treatment plans outside the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's self-reports to his psychological assessor were inaccurate and unsupported by corroborating clinical notes and records from his treating physicians.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, and because the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her psychological and physical injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to corroborate the applicant's self-reported psychological impairments, noting she only visited a physician once post-accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the claims for treatment plans outside the MIG limit.

The respondent's request for costs due to late submissions was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to $1,748.81 for assistive devices and physical therapy, as the occupational therapy assessment supported their necessity for a return to normal life.

However, the Tribunal denied a $3,081.50 chronic pain assessment due to a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence and the applicant's failure to attend a previously approved assessment.

Claims for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 were dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The applicant applied to the Tribunal, claiming she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain with functional impairment and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to support removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the comprehensive s. 44 assessments provided by the respondent's experts over the applicant's OCF-18s, which were completed to secure funding.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claim for a dental services treatment plan and interest.

The applicant argued that proceeding by way of a written hearing was procedurally unfair because he could not summons the respondent's dental assessor, and that medical issues prevented him from submitting his materials on time.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant had an opportunity to dispute the hearing format at the case conference and that his medical note post-dated the deadline for his written submissions.

The applicant failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

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

The respondent insurer denied benefits and scheduled insurer's examinations (IEs) to assess entitlement to medical benefits and non-earner benefits.

The applicant failed to attend the IEs.

The respondent argued the applicant was barred from proceeding with his application under section 55 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the notices of examination for the medical benefits did not comply with section 44(5) as they lacked sufficient medical or other reasons.

However, the notices for the non-earner benefits were compliant.

Therefore, the applicant was permitted to proceed with his claim for medical benefits but barred from proceeding with his claim for non-earner benefits.

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

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

The applicant claimed chronic pain and a psychological condition warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting his return to physically demanding work and lack of a chronic pain or psychological diagnosis.

The treatment plans for chronic pain and psychological assessments were denied as the applicant was held to the MIG funding limit.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairments, including anxiety and specific phobias, warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for outstanding balances on psychological treatment plans, finding that the provider was a qualifying psychotherapist and not entitled to the higher hourly rate reserved for psychologists under the Professional Services Guideline.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision holding him to a 2004 settlement of his motor vehicle accident claims.

The applicant argued the settlement was invalid because he initialed, rather than signed, the Statutory Disclosure Notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant's failure to sign the specific signature line was a technical and immaterial defect that did not invalidate the notice or allow him to rescind the agreement.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment designation under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural impairments) following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued she sustained marked impairments in concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including her own testimony and her assessors' reports, lacked objective testing and failed to account for significant pre-existing psychological issues and unrelated physical degeneration.

Preferring the respondent's multidisciplinary and objective assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant demonstrated adaptability and sustained functionality in her daily life, college attendance, and household management.

The application for catastrophic impairment designation was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on musculoskeletal injuries, chronic pain, and psychological impairments, seeking approval for various treatment plans and assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to substantiate his claims, noting that his medical records sparsely mentioned the accident and lacked evidence of functional impairment or psychological complaints.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were minor, dismissed the claims for treatment plans outside the MIG, and denied interest.

Unifund Assurance Company brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement requiring Dieter Knoppke to pay $600,000.

Alex Krek's estate sought a continuation order and removal of an encumbrance from title.

The court granted Unifund's motion, ordering Knoppke to pay the settlement amount with 5% pre-judgment interest.

The court also granted the Krek estate's requests.

While acknowledging Knoppke's egregious conduct, the court declined to award punitive damages due to his absence and lack of instructions to counsel, opting instead to award full indemnity costs to Unifund and partial indemnity costs to the Krek estate.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding it lacked jurisdiction to award punitive damages for statutory accident benefits claims.

The appellant argued the LAT had jurisdiction or, alternatively, that section 280 of the Insurance Act was unconstitutional for eliminating punitive damages claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT's jurisdiction is strictly statutory and does not include punitive damages, as established by binding Court of Appeal precedent.

The court also rejected the constitutional challenge, finding the legislature clearly and validly removed jurisdiction over these claims from the courts to the LAT.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, transportation expenses, chiropractic services, and lost educational expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting she resumed her university studies with the same course load as before the accident.

The claims for transportation and chiropractic services were dismissed for lack of evidence establishing they were reasonable and necessary.

The claim for lost educational expenses was denied because the tuition expenses were incurred after the accident, contrary to the requirements of section 21(5) of the Schedule.

The appellant was denied income replacement benefits after her insurer discovered she misrepresented her address to obtain a lower premium.

The insurer subsequently charged her a retroactive premium increase.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial and refused to apply section 131 of the Insurance Act, which excuses non-compliance based on an insurer's conduct, finding it lacked equitable jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held the LAT erred in law by conflating equitable remedies with statutory relief under section 131, which the LAT has jurisdiction to apply.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that his accident-related impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied his claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by failing to consider or assign appropriate weight to an x-ray, an occupational therapy report, and a chiropractor's OCF-18.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate the matter and advance new arguments that were not raised at the initial hearing.

The Tribunal confirmed that because the applicant's injuries were subject to the MIG and the monetary limit had been reached, there was no error in denying the disputed treatment plans.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while crossing the street and sought statutory accident benefits for injuries sustained.

The insurer denied two treatment plans for chiropractic services and assistive devices.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found both treatment plans to be reasonable and necessary, preferring the applicant's medical evidence over the insurer's examination reports, which were primarily focused on a withdrawn non-earner benefit claim.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue benefits but dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award, finding the insurer had applied proper due diligence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the insurer's request for costs related to the late withdrawal of the non-earner benefit claim.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to vary an order setting aside a dismissal of her action and to extend time, which also resulted in the dismissal of her action.

The court awarded costs to the City of Toronto and Toronto Transit Commission, with a 10% reduction due to the plaintiff's financial situation.

However, the court declined to award costs to the third party, Guild Electric Limited, on the basis that the plaintiff did not initiate the third-party claim.