Tribunals Ontario Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division 77 Wellesley Street West, Box 250 Toronto ON M7A 1N3 Tel: 1-844-242-0608 Fax: 416-327-6379 Website: www.slasto-tsapno.gov.on.ca
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Division de la sécurité des appels en matière de permis et des normes 77 rue Wellesley Ouest, Boîte no 250 Toronto ON M7A 1N3 Tél. : 1-844-242-0608 Téléc. : 416-327-6379 Site Web : www.slasto-tsapno.gov.on.ca
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Dawn J. Kershaw, Vice-Chair
Date: July 2, 2019
File: 17-006851/AABS
Case Name: C.F. v. RBC Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: David Carranza, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Patrick M. Baker, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1The applicant’s request for reconsideration, filed on June 29, 2018, arises from a May 7, 2018 decision of the Tribunal that in part found that the applicant was entitled to payment for the cost of examination in the sum of $2000.00 for a psychological assessment. However, the Tribunal decided that the hourly rate charged by the social worker should be reduced to $58.19 from the $149.61 claimed, because the work she did was most akin to that of a psychometrist.
2Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 5, I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with the applicable rules of the Tribunal.
3As explained below, I deny the applicant’s request for reconsideration.
BACKGROUND
4The Professional Services Guideline1 provides a list of service providers and the hourly rate for the listed service providers.
5The Tribunal’s principal findings with respect to the cost of examination in this case were as follows:
(a) Although the only name listed in the disputed assessment and report was the psychologist’s, the work was done by a social worker who was not named;
(b) The Professional Services Guideline2 does not provide an hourly rate for social workers;
(c) The social worker was working in the capacity of a psychometrist by administering testing instruments and preparing the report;
(d) Psychometrists generally work under the supervision of a psychologist in administering certain testing instruments, and in this case a psychologist supervised the social worker and signed the report;
(e) The social worker, acting as a psychometrist, was entitled to $58.19 per hour, not the $149.61 per hour claimed.
6The applicant seeks payment for the cost of examination in the total sum of $2000.00 at the rate of $149.61 per hour as requested in the Application.
THE LAW
7There are limited grounds upon which a person can request a reconsideration. In this case, the applicant asserts that the Tribunal violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness and made a significant error of law and of facts such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision had the error(s) not been made. The applicant asserts that it therefore is entitled to a reconsideration pursuant to section 18.2(b) of The Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) (“Rules”).
ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION
Denial of Natural Justice
8The applicant argues first that the Tribunal denied the applicant natural justice because it made a decision with respect to the hourly rate even though the respondent did not raise an issue with the cost of the assessment. In fact, however, the respondent raised the issue and the applicant provided reply submissions and thereby had an opportunity to present its case on the issue of the appropriate hourly rate. The applicant was not denied natural justice.
No Legal Errors
9The applicant argues that the Tribunal erred in law because in finding that the social worker was entitled to the psychometrist chargeable rate, it classified her as an unregulated health professional when in reality she is regulated as a psychotherapist in good standing with the College of Registered Psychotherapists (“the College”).
10She further argues that because the College states that a social worker can charge what they feel is “reasonable”, and additionally because the Insurance Bulletin states that a psychological associate can charge $149.61 per hour, the Tribunal should not have reduced her hourly rate.
11The respondent takes the position that it is irrelevant whether or not the Tribunal determined that the social worker was regulated or not as there is no chargeable rate included in the Professional Services Guideline (“Guideline”) for either a social worker or a psychotherapist. It submits that the real issue is whether the applicant is entitled to payment of the cost of a psychologist’s examination when the Tribunal analyzed the services provided and found that they were provided by a social worker under the supervision of the psychologist. The respondent stated that the applicant provided no evidence that any services were provided by the psychologist other than to sign the report.
12I agree with the respondent that it is not relevant in this instance that the Tribunal applied an hourly rate for “unregulated providers”, which includes “psychometrist”. Neither social worker nor psychotherapist is included in the Guideline (unlike “psychologist” that is included), and neither party argued that the social worker was a psychological associate who also could charge the psychologist’s rate. Because a “social worker” does not appear in the Guideline, social workers can charge any fee they feel is “reasonable”, according to the Canadian Association of Social Workers. In this case, the parties disagreed on the chargeable amount and the Tribunal analyzed the services provided and made an order by considering the services provided. In doing so, the Tribunal used the Guideline as a guide, which is not inappropriate in my view, and concluded that the services provided were most akin to the services of a psychometrist.
13I find no error in the Tribunal’s analysis that in this case:
(i) the services the social worker provided were most akin to a psychometrist;
(ii) it was the social worker who provided the services, not the psychologist who signed the report;
(iii) the applicant was not entitled to the psychologist chargeable rate set out in the Guideline.
14I find there was no error of law by the Tribunal.
No Error of Fact
15Finally, the applicant submitted that the Tribunal made an error of facts when it stated in paragraph 18 of the decision that the only person listed in the treatment plan was the social worker, which is incorrect. However, I find the Tribunal did not make an error of fact because the Tribunal was simply setting out the respondent’s arguments. The Tribunal actually correctly stated that the only name in the treatment plan was the psychologist’s. As such, I find no error of facts.
ORDER
16The applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied and the request is therefore dismissed pursuant to Rule 18.2(b) of The Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017).
Dawn J. Kerhsaw Vice-Chair Tribunals Ontario – Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division
Released: July 2, 2019