Released Date: 10/28/2020
In the matter of an Application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8., in relation to statutory accident benefits.
Between:
S.K.
Applicant
and
Aviva Insurance Canada
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Kate Grieves
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Manreet Pabla, Counsel
Gary Mazin, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Ramandeep Pandher, Counsel
Interpreter:
Chandrasekaran Bangarsamyraja, Tamil Language
HEARD:
In Person January 13 to 17, 2020
OVERVIEW
1The applicant was involved in an automobile accident on May 27, 2018 and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (the ''Schedule''). The applicant was a pedestrian struck by a vehicle while she was crossing the street. The applicant suffered serious injuries including fractured right leg and ankle, a dislocated knee, and sprain and strain of her neck and shoulder. She required surgery on her right ankle and was non-weight bearing for four months. She subsequently underwent a total knee replacement.
2The parties agree that the applicant required attendant care up to $3,000.00 per month since June 2016. The respondent has denied payment on the basis that the respondent has not incurred the services in accordance with the Schedule. The respondent submits that the applicant has not received the services claimed, and second, the invoices submitted are not payable because insufficient information was provided. The applicant submitted an application to the Tribunal for resolution of that dispute, as well as her entitlement to the cost of catastrophic assessments, and a social work assessment which was partially approved.
ISSUES
3The issues in dispute to be decided in this hearing are:
a. Is the applicant entitled to attendant care benefits at the rate of $3,000.00 per month from October 1, 2018 to date and ongoing?
b. Is the applicant entitled to $759.95 for the balance of a treatment plan for a social worker assessment recommended by Function Ability Rehabilitation submitted on July 30, 2018 and partially approved by the respondent?
c. Is the applicant entitled to $10,057.00 for the cost of examinations for catastrophic assessments recommended by Omega Medical in a treatment plan submitted on May 22, 2019 and denied by the respondent on June 17, 2019?
d. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
e. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under Regulation 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
RESULT
4The applicant is entitled to attendant care benefits of $3,000.00 per month from October 2018 and ongoing, subject to the services being incurred. The monthly payable amounts are calculated and set out in Appendix “A”. All exceed the statutory maximum. The applicant is therefore entitled to the statutory maximum of $3,000.00 per month with interest payable in accordance with the Schedule.
5The applicant is entitled to $696.50 for the balance of the treatment plan for a social work assessment, with interest payable in accordance with the Schedule.
6The applicant is not entitled to the cost of examinations for catastrophic impairment.
7The applicant is not entitled to an award pursuant to Regulation 664.
ANALYSIS
Preliminary issue:
8In the applicant’s closing submissions, the applicant raises for the first time that the issue in dispute is whether she is entitled to $3,000 per month in attendant care benefits from October 2018 and ongoing, “subject to available policy limits, which may change?”
9After the conclusion of the hearing, in closing submissions, the applicant is essentially asking the Tribunal to make a determination about attendant care benefits if the applicant is deemed catastrophically impaired. The issue was never raised at the case conference, nor at the hearing before the Tribunal. The issue was not before the Tribunal and no evidence or submissions were provided on that matter. The applicant is attempting to “move the goalposts” and this is unfair to the respondent. The applicant is not catastrophically impaired at present. If the applicant wishes to dispute her entitlement to attendant care benefits at catastrophic rates, she may do so on a future application. I will not change the disputed issue as suggested by the applicant.
a. Attendant Care
10The respondent submits that some or all the attendant care services claimed were not provided to the applicant, based on the surveillance, the contradictory evidence of the applicant, her daughter, and son-in-law, as well as the improper billing by the service providers.
11The respondent initially paid the invoices as submitted even though the hourly rate exceeded the Form 1 hourly rates, and despite there being little information as to the breakdown of services rendered.
12After the accident on May 27, 2018, the applicant had surgery on her right ankle and a cast was applied. She was non-weight bearing for four months, and required 24-hour assistance with all her activities. After she was released from the hospital, the applicant moved in with one of her daughters. She received attendant care services from a company called Mom’s Lap from June 2018 to August 2018. The invoices from Mom’s Lap include daily logs showing a general list of tasks with no breakdown of minutes per task. The respondent paid $3,000.00 per month for services from Mom’s Lap for three months from June to August 2018.
13In September 2018, the applicant began receiving services from Infinite Care. According to the invoices, services were provided from Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The respondent paid the September invoice.
14The applicant continued to receive services from Infinite Care in October and November 2018. A weekly log sheet was provided to the respondent with a breakdown of the tasks completed in the seven hours per day. By letter dated December 4, 2018, the respondent disputed the invoices claimed for October and November 2018, which they paid at a reduced rate in accordance with the Form 1 tasks and hourly rates.1 No further attendant care has been paid to date. Despite the respondent’s refusal to pay for services, the applicant continued to receive attendant care from Infinite Care on the same schedule from September 2018 until May 2019. Since June 2019, the applicant has been receiving attendant care services from MedEx.
Calculation of Benefits
15The respondent submits that the services, if they were received, were payable in accordance with the rates set out in the Form 1. The respondent relies on the Tribunal’s decision in SK v. Aviva.2 The applicant relies on the FSCO Superintendent’s Guideline No. 01/18 and Bulletin A-03/18, and submits that the maximum hourly rates are only required to calculate the monthly attendant care benefit for the purposes of the Form 1, and not to strictly apply the maximum hourly rates as the maximum payable for attendant care services. The applicant submits that the respondent’s approval of the earlier invoices with hourly rates of $25 or $26 per hour is indicative of the respondent’s acceptance of the reasonableness of these rates. A minute-by-minute breakdown of time spent on each task is not required, because the maximum rates from the Form 1 based on the level of care do not apply. Despite that, Infinite Care provided a “weekly log book” which provided a general breakdown of the time spent on each task throughout the seven hours per day of care provided.
16In accordance with FSCO Superintendent’s Guideline No. 01/18 and Bulletin A-03/18, I find that the hourly rates set out in the Form 1 are meant to be used only for the purposes of calculating the entitlement. The Professional Services Guideline stipulates that for services provided by health care professionals and providers not covered by the guideline, then the amounts payable are to be determined by the parties involved. It also specifies that insurers are not liable to pay any amount for appointments that are missed or cancelled by an insured.
17I find that the case relied upon by the respondent is distinguishable, because Bulletin A-03/18 did not apply in that case because the accident occurred in 2015. Effective for accidents after April 14, 2018, the Bulletin clarifies that the maximum hourly rates are used to calculate the monthly benefit, and not strictly apply the maximum hourly rates as the maximum payable for attendant care services.
Benefits Payable
18The applicant has required and received care since the accident from various personal support workers. I am satisfied that the services were incurred by the applicant, with a few exceptions which I will discuss further below.
19However, I am concerned with some of the inaccuracies in the invoicing from some of the service providers. The respondent submits that because it is not possible to determine the actual services provided with any degree of certainty, that no attendant care is payable. The invoices from MedEx do not appear to have been completed contemporaneously with when services were provided, or when the log sheet was submitted. There are no dates on the logs. The same errors appear on every day of the month of August. Therefore, if they are not completed contemporaneously, they do not provide an accurate reflection of when the PSW came or left, or the type of services received, if any. The representatives testified that their contracts with the applicant stipulate that they bill the insurer for a minimum of four hours per day, regardless of how many hours of services were provided. Both directors testified that their cancellation policies state that if the applicant cancelled the PSW’s attendance with insufficient notice, the provider still billed for a full day without services rendered. However, the representative of Infinite Care confirmed that the cancellation policy never came into effect for the applicant.
20While I agree that there are certainly issues with the log sheets and invoices from the providers, it would be unfair to deprive the insured in the context of the accident benefits scheme of all attendant care, when both parties agree that the applicant requires 24-hour attendant care, and even the surveillance reveals that the applicant was receiving significant attendant care services. I am satisfied that, on a balance of probabilities, the applicant has incurred attendant care services.
21Since December 2018 the respondent has withheld all attendant care. Given that I am satisfied that the attendant care services have been incurred, I am tasked with determining the quantum of attendant care payable. As noted above, the rates set out in the Form 1 is used only to calculate the entitlement. I accept that $25-$26 per hour is a reasonable fee for PSW services. MedEx invoices for services at $35 per hour, which I find excessive considering both other providers billed $25 to $26 per hour. I have reviewed the invoices from each provider to calculate the amounts payable per month. Attached at Appendix A to this decision are my calculations. I have calculated the benefits payable from October 2018 to August 2019 based on the invoices before me. The amount payable exceeds the statutory maximum, therefore the applicant is entitled to $3,000.00 per month, less any amounts paid, with interest in accordance with the Schedule.
22The surveillance provided by the respondent revealed that sometimes there was some flexibility in the arrival and departure times of the personal support workers, sometimes they arrived early or later than 9:00 a.m. The surveillance dating back to March 2019 confirms not only the PSW attended regularly, but that she was also providing mobility assistance. I do not accept that the surveillance evidence from March 27, 2019 supports that the applicant did not receive services that day. According to the report, although the PSW was not observed attending the home, the investigator arrived at 9:07 a.m. – so quite possibly after the PSW would have arrived for the day at 9:00 a.m. or earlier – and departed at 10:38 a.m., when the PSW reportedly doesn’t leave until 4:00 p.m.
23The respondent submits that surveillance on July 2, 4, and 5, 2019 suggests that no PSW attended the applicant’s home on those days. MedEx billed for 8 hours of services provided on each of those days. The applicant testified that she was likely at her other daughter’s house those days, and the PSW provided services at that location. This is consistent with the daughter’s evidence that the applicant stayed at her home, and two PSWs came to her home. She testified that the applicant had stayed at her home for a few days in the summertime, which she specifically recalled because her children were at home on school holidays. A representative from the service provider also confirmed that there were arrangements for services to be provided at the applicant’s other daughter’s home. Given the consistency of the evidence between the applicant, her daughter, and the service provider, I accept the applicant’s explanation that services were provided on those days, but at the other daughter’s home.
24I find that the surveillance obtained on August 6 and 7, 2019 is generally consistent with the billing and that the PSW sometimes comes earlier or later than 9:00 a.m. I do accept that there are inconsistencies with the billing on August 9, 2019 as no PSW was observed to attend on the surveillance. Also, MedEx billed for services on August 8, 2019 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. while the surveillance indicates that the service provider attended from 8:51 a.m. until 2:15 p.m. I suspect this may have been an error in the billing because the hours that services were provided changed on August 8 according to the logs. In any event, I find that the provider should not have billed for the missing hours on August 8 or any time on August 9 when no provider is observed.
25The evidence of the applicant’s son-in-law was that the PSW attended Monday to Friday, never on weekends, and only a couple of times on statutory holidays. Despite that evidence, the invoices indicate that PSW services were billed for every statutory holiday, including Christmas day. He then provided contradictory evidence when asked specifically about each holiday, suggesting that services were required because he was out with his family. I find that the providers inappropriately billed for services not rendered on statutory holidays.
26The monthly amounts payable for attendant care are calculated in Appendix “A” to this decision.
b. Social Worker Assessment
27A treatment plan for a social worker assessment totalling $1,842.95 was submitted by Function Ability Rehabilitation on July 30, 2018.3 The respondent agreed to partially fund the assessment up to $1,083.00. The parties dispute the hourly rate for the social worker, and the time allocated for documentation and travel.
Claimed
Approved by the Respondent
social work assessment
3 hrs @ $135/hr = $405.00
3 hrs @$100/hr = $300
travel time
1.67 hrs @ $135/hr = $225.45
1 hr 20 min @ $100/hr = $133
completion of report
6 hrs @ $135/hr = $810
3 hrs @100/hr = $300
planning service
1.5 hr @ $135/hr= $202.50
1.5 hr @ $100 = $150
form completion
$200
$200
28I accept that $135 per hour is a reasonable rate for the social work assessment. Dinah Finkelstein, a registered social worker completed the OCF-18, and subsequently completed the social work assessment. Ms. Finkelstein testified that the hourly rates charged by her employer are based on an industry standard, according to the Ontario Association of Social Workers (OASW). The OASW’s recommended hourly rates for social work in the motor vehicle accident sector are $130 to $150 per hour for assessment and treatment.4
29The respondent submits that the hourly rate of $135 for a social worker was excessive. The respondent referred to average hourly rate for social workers in Ontario hospitals is $29 per hour, and that in the context of WSIB claims, the hourly rate charged by social workers is $90. However, no evidence was submitted regarding hospital or WSIB rates or where those figures were obtained.
30The respondent also pointed out that the hourly rate for unregulated health professions in the FSCO Guidelines is approximately $59. Social workers are not covered by FSCO Professional Services Guidelines. The Guidelines state that the amounts payable by an insurer related to services not covered by the Guideline are to be determined by the parties involved.
31Given Ms. Finkelstein’s education, including a master’s degree in social work, her experience and qualifications, and given that the rate is modest in terms of the range provided by the OASW, I find that the hourly rate of $135 is appropriate.
32With respect to the fees for travel time, I prefer the respondent’s submission that one hour and 20 minutes is appropriate, as this was calculated using MapQuest, accounting for heavy traffic. The time calculated by Ms. Finkelstein was her own estimation of the time required to travel to the applicant’s home. One hour and 20 minutes of travel time is reasonable.
33With respect to the completion of the report, I am satisfied that 6 hours is reasonable to complete a 13-page report, considering the amount of time it takes to review previous medical records, analyze test results and observations made during the assessment, and to draft and revise the report.
34Accordingly, I find that $1,779.50 is reasonable for the social work assessment, as follows:
social work assessment
3 hrs @ $135/hr = $405
travel time
1 hr 20 min @ $135/hr = $162
completion of report
6 hrs @ $135/hr = $810
planning service
1.5 hr @ $135/hr= $202.50
form completion
$200
c. Catastrophic Assessments
35The onus is on the applicant to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that each assessment recommended in the treatment plan is reasonable and necessary, and if so, that the fees charged are reasonable.
36Just under a year after the accident, on May 22, 2019, Omega Medical submitted an OCF-18 proposing catastrophic assessments totalling $10,057.00, as follows:
Orthopedic Assessment $2,000
X-rays to measure cartilage damage $500
SCIM Assessment $2,000
Clinic File Review $2,000
CAT Analysis & Ratings $2,000
OCF-19 Certificate $200
OCF-18 Form $200
37The applicant relies on Adjudicator Victor’s decision in LG v Unifund and submits that because it was possible that the applicant may be catastrophically impaired, it is therefore reasonable to determine whether or not the applicant is catastrophically impaired.5 The applicant submits that given the serious injuries she sustained, and because she was close to exhausting the non-catastrophic benefits limit, it was necessary to explore the possibility of accessing additional benefits and whether her injuries amounted to catastrophic impairment.
38The respondent relies on the Tribunal decision in CA v Intact; however, it made no submissions as to how this decision is relevant, or why it was relied upon.6 In any event, in that decision the Tribunal held that each constituent assessment that makes up the multidisciplinary catastrophic assessment must be reasonable and necessary. The Tribunal held that the results of the assessment are not a relevant consideration when determining the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment plan. I agree.
39The applicant submits that it was reasonable for Omega to assess catastrophic impairment pursuant to Criteria 2 and 6. In order to be catastrophically impaired under Criterion 2 there must be a “severe and permanent alteration of prior structure and function involving one or both legs”. Criterion 6 may apply if the person sustained a physical impairment that results in whole person impairment of 55% or more in accordance with the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. If less than two years have elapsed since the accident, the insured person’s condition must also be unlikely to improve to less than 55%.
40I find that the proposed catastrophic assessments were not reasonable and necessary. While I agree that the applicant had suffered serious injuries and had ongoing limitations as a result, the catastrophic assessments were premature. The evidence does not support that the applicant’s injuries were permanent at that juncture. Only six months had elapsed since the applicant had a total knee replacement. Her mobility was improving, having graduated from a wheelchair to a walker, then to using a cane.
41The applicant had not reached maximum medical recovery at the time the assessment was proposed. She reported to the assessors that she was improving. Her ranges of motion were improving. Dr. Dessouki testified that he expected that the applicant would experience more improvement with additional treatment. The respondent continued to approve treatment. Because she continued to improve, it could not be said that the impairment was permanent. While I accept that the applicant had alteration of the prior structure of the leg, it could not be said that it was permanent given the ongoing improvement.
42Furthermore, the applicant has not discharged her burden to prove why each of the proposed modalities were reasonable. Omega did not provide any attachments, summary, or any further explanation as to why each assessment was reasonable or necessary. In Part 9 of the OCF-18, with respect to the goals of the assessment it indicates “other/not applicable”. There are several sections of the treatment plan that indicate “unknown” including whether the applicant had any prior or subsequent conditions, pre-accident employment or activities. I agree with the respondent that the information provided in the treatment plan was minimal. The OCF-18 requests funding for over $10,000 with little explanation as to what each item is, or why it is required.
43In light of the foregoing, I find that the treatment plan is not reasonable or necessary.
d. Interest
44Given that I have found that the applicant is entitled to attendant care benefits and a portion of the social work assessment, the applicant is entitled to interest on those amounts, payable in accordance with the Schedule.
e. Special Award
45Ontario Regulation 664, R.R.O. 1990 (O. Reg. 664) provides that if the Tribunal finds that an insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payment, in addition to awarding the benefits and interest to which an insured person is entitled, the Tribunal may award a lump sum of up to 50% of the amount to which the person was entitled at the time of the award, with interest.
46The applicant submits that the respondent fell short of its duty to adjust the file in utmost good faith by unreasonably withholding and denying payment of benefits. The applicant submits that the respondent’s conduct in making zero attendant care payments since December 2018 was excessive, imprudent, stubborn and inflexible. Attendant care benefits were paid at the rate of $25 or $26 per hour for June to September 2018. Partial payments were issued in October and November 2018 based on the Form 1 hourly rates. The applicant submits that the respondent acted in bad faith in reducing the attendant care amounts by using the Form 1 hourly rates. Further, the applicant submits that the respondent prematurely requested Insurer Examinations to address ongoing entitlement.
47The respondent disagrees with the applicant’s characterization. It submits that in December 2018, it received the invoices for attendant care in October 2018. The respondent noted discrepancies between services listed on the invoice (e.g. laundering) and those listed on the Form 1. The respondent submits that it had concerns that housekeeping services, such as laundry, were being provided by the PSW which is not payable under attendant care. Further, the invoices from Infinite Care billed for services provided on statutory holidays (Thanksgiving), because the respondent was aware that the applicant’s family was providing care on evening and weekends. The discrepancies led to further investigation by the respondent. The respondent submits that it acted in good faith, ensuring that it paid for services which it believed were incurred based on the information provided.
48It is settled law that an award is not ordered simply because the insurer made an incorrect decision. In order to attract a s. 10 award, the insurer’s conduct must be excessive, imprudent, stubborn, inflexible, unyielding or immoderate. A s. 10 award is fact-specific.
49The purpose of a special award is to punish an insurer for misconduct and to deter it and others from future similar actions. An insurer is not to be held to a standard of perfection, but rather, it should be held to a standard of reasonableness.
50I find that the respondent’s conduct does not rise to the level required for a s. 10 award. The insurer initially paid the benefits, then upon receiving further documentation, questioned the amounts claimed. The respondent began investigating whether the benefits were actually incurred, given discrepancies in the invoicing, and surveillance which suggested that the applicant was not receiving the services claimed. It had insufficient information to calculate the benefits due to its incorrect belief that attendant care is payable based on the Form 1 rates. While it was an error, I do not find that the conduct rises to a level that would attract an award.
ORDER
51The applicant is entitled to attendant care benefits of $3,000.00 per month from October 2018 and ongoing, subject to the services being incurred. The monthly payable amounts are calculated and set out in Appendix “A”. All exceed the statutory maximum. The applicant is therefore entitled to the statutory maximum of $3,000.00 per month with interest payable in accordance with the Schedule.
52The applicant is entitled to $696.50 for the balance of the treatment plan for a social work assessment, with interest payable in accordance with the Schedule.
53The applicant is not entitled to the cost of examinations for catastrophic impairment.
54The applicant is not entitled to an award pursuant to Regulation 664.
Released: October 28, 2020
Kate Grieves
Adjudicator
APPENDIX “A”
Calculation of monthly attendant care:
- October 2018 invoice – Infinite Care
Original invoice:
Improper charges:
Calculation
Amount Payable:
7 hrs x 23 days plus 7 hrs on Thanksgiving = 168 hrs @ $26/hr = $4368.00 + HST
Thanksgiving on October 8 and a cancellation on October 26.
7 hrs x 21 days = 147 hrs @ $26 hr = $3,822.00 +HST
$4,318.86
- November 2018 invoice – Infinite Care
Original invoice:
Improper charges:
Calculation
Amount Payable:
9 am to 4 pm, 7hrs a day x 21 days plus 7 hrs on Remembrance Day which fell on a Sunday; Does note that applicant had knee surgery on Nov 29 – did not bill for that day. Billed 154 hrs @ $26/hr = $4004.00 + HST
Remembrance Day is not a statutory holiday in Ontario, and no services were provided on Sundays. Cannot bill for Remembrance Day.
7 hrs x 21 days = 147 hrs @ $26/hr = $3,822.00 + HST
$4,318.86
- December 2018 invoice – Infinite Care
Original invoice:
Improper charges:
Calculation
Amount Payable:
9 am to 4 pm, 7hrs a day x 21 days and 7 hrs statutory half time for Christmas Day and Boxing Day = 154 hrs @ $26/hr = $4004.00 + HST
No services provided on Christmas Day or Boxing Day.
7 hrs x 19 days = 133 hrs @ $26/hr = $3,458.00 + HST
$3,907.54
- January 2019 invoice – Infinite Care
Original invoice:
Improper charges:
Calculation
Amount Payable:
9 am to 4 pm, 7hrs a day x 23 days plus 3.5 hrs statutory half time on New Year’s Day. Billed 164.5 hrs @ $26/hr = $4,277.00 + HST
Services not provided on New Year’s Day.
7 hrs x 22 days = 154hrs @ $26/hr = $4,004.00 + HST
$4,524.52
- February 2019 invoice – Infinite Care
Original invoice:
Improper charges:
Calculation
Amount Payable:
9 am to 4 pm, 7hrs a day x 20 days plus 3.5 hrs statutory half time for Family Day. Billed 143.5 hrs @ $26/hr = $3,731.00 + HST
Services not provided on Family Day.
7 hrs x 19 days = 133hrs @ $26/hr = $3,458.00 + HST
$3,907.54
- March and April 2019 invoice – Infinite Care (both months billed on one invoice)
Original invoice:
Improper charges:
Calculation
Amount Payable:
9 am to 4 pm, 7hrs a day x 21 days in March = 147 hrs
and 7hrs a day x 22 days in April = 154 hrs
Statutory half time for Good Friday 3.5 hrs
Billed 304.5 hrs @ $26/hr = $7,917.00 + HST
Services not provided on Good Friday
7 hrs x 21 days in March = 147 hrs
7 hrs x 21 days in April = 147 hrs
294 hrs @ $26/hr = $7,644.00+ HST
$8,637.72
- May 2019 invoice – Infinite Care
Original invoice:
Improper charges:
Calculation
Amount Payable:
9 am to 4 pm, 7hrs a day x 23 days. Billed 161 hrs @ $26/hr = $4,186.00 + HST
Services not provided on Victoria Day
7 hrs x 22 days = 154hrs @ $26/hr = $4,004.00 + HST
$4,524.52
- June 2019 invoice – MedEx – according to the activity log, services provided from 9:00 to 2:00 by one provider, and then 4:30 to 7:30 by another provider.
Original invoice:
Improper charges:
Calculation
Amount Payable:
Services June 1 to 30, 2019 = 153 hrs at $35/hr = $5,355.00
hourly rate of $35 is excessive
153hrs @ $26/hr = $3,978.00 + HST
$4,495.14
- July 2019 invoice – MedEx – according to the activity log, services provided from 9:00 to 2:00 by one provider, and then 5:00 to 8:00 by another provider.
Original invoice:
Improper charges:
Calculation
Amount Payable:
Services July 1 to 31, 2019 = 170 hrs at $35/hr = $5,950.00
(did not bill for holidays)
hourly rate of $35 is excessive
170 hrs @ $26/hr = $4,420.00 + HST
$4,994.60
- August 2019 invoice – MedEx – as of August 9, 2019 service provider started coming from 9 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Original invoice:
Improper charges:
Calculation
Amount Payable:
Services Aug 1 to 31, 2019 = 170 hrs at $35/hr = $5,950.00
(did not bill for holidays)
hourly rate of $35 is excessive
no services provided on August 9
less 2.5 hours for error on August 8
= 157.5 hrs
157.5 hrs @ $26/hr = $4,095.00 + HST
$4,627.35
Footnotes
- Exhibit 34.
- 17-006866/AABS, 2019 CanLII 94065 (ON LAT).
- Exhibit 22.
- Exhibit 23.
- 18-008089/AABS, 2019 CanLII 101604 (ON LAT).
- 18-000579/AABS, 2018 CanLII 130861 (ON LAT)