Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-009848/AABS
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:
Chiara Franzoi
Applicant
and
TD General Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Rachel Levitsky
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Ryan M. Naimark, Counsel
For the Respondent: Arfa Saeed, Counsel
HEARD: By way of written submissions
OVERVIEW
1Chiara Franzoi, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on October 25, 2021, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”). The applicant was denied benefits by the respondent, Insurer, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
ISSUES
2The Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”) specified that the following issues are in dispute:
i. Is the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit (“IRB”) in the amount of $346.22 per week from July 7, 2023, to date and ongoing?
ii. Is the respondent entitled to a repayment of $17,257.35 relating to its payment of an income replacement benefit for the period of October 25, 2021, to January 2, 2022?
iii. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
3With respect to issue (i), I note that the applicant and the respondent agree that the question of whether the applicant meets the test for IRB entitlement is not at issue. The applicant and the respondent also agree that the applicant’s entitlement to IRBs is $400.00 per week. The applicant submits that “what remains at issue are the award and interest payable to the applicant”. However, at the end of the applicant’s submissions, she requests an order declaring that she is entitled to IRBs at a rate of $400.00/week from July 1, 2022, to date.
RESULT
4The applicant has not met her burden to prove that she is entitled to $400.00 per week in IRBs as of July 1, 2022.
5The respondent is not entitled to a repayment of IRBs paid.
6The applicant is entitled to interest on the IRB payment of $2,230.89 from June 3 to August 16, 2022, pursuant to s. 51(3) of the Schedule.
7The applicant is entitled to interest on the IRB payment of $6,001.66. Interest shall be calculated in accordance with s. 51(3) from January 1 to August 21, 2023, and it shall subsequently be calculated in accordance with s. 51(4) from August 22, 2023, to April 28, 2024.
8The respondent is liable to pay an award of $2,000.00.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
9The applicant submits that the respondent’s submissions were served three hours late. She also submits that the respondent’s hearing brief is not paginated, bookmarked, or hyperlinked. Finally, the applicant submits that the respondent did not provide log notes, despite it being previously ordered to do so.
10However, the applicant does not indicate whether she is seeking a remedy for these procedural breaches. Further, she does not allege any prejudice as a result of the respondent’s actions. I am accordingly not prepared to make any procedural rulings with respect to the breaches alleged by the applicant.
ANALYSIS
Background
11The applicant submitted an OCF-1 to the respondent on November 10, 2021, which indicated that she was employed at TD bank, and had group benefits through Manulife. An OCF-3 was also submitted to the respondent on November 10, 2021. A second OCF-1 was faxed to the respondent on November 25, 2021, indicating that the applicant had short-term disability benefits through Manulife.
12By way of letter dated November 16, 2021, the respondent confirmed that the applicant’s injuries prevented her return to work after the accident and requested an OCF-2 to be able to calculate the IRB correctly.
13On December 15, 2021, the respondent acknowledged receipt of an OCF-10, OCF-1, and OCF-3. However, it indicated that it was awaiting the submission of the OCF-2 before it could proceed with a calculation of the applicant’s IRB.
14The applicant submits that she had difficulty obtaining the OCF-2 from her employer and made numerous requests for this document. It was not until June 1, 2022, that her employer provided her with the OCF-2 and supporting documents. These documents, including an absence report from 2016 to February 11, 2022, and paystubs from September 13 to October 24, 2021, were provided to the respondent on June 3, 2022. The absence report indicated that the applicant received short-term disability benefits from October 25, 2021, to February 11, 2022.
15On June 30, 2022, the applicant’s short-term disability benefit was terminated. On July 20, 2022, the applicant provided the respondent with paystubs from the period of August 16, 2021, to July 17, 2022. On August 11, 2022, the applicant’s counsel explained to the respondent that the applicant’s short-term disability benefit payments were stopped by her employer on or about June 30, 2022, and advised that this was evident on the July 2022 paystubs.
16On August 16, 2022, the respondent advised that it had calculated an interim weekly IRB based in the amount of $346.23 per week, and $2,230.89 for the period from November 2, 2021, to August 19, 2022. According to documents attached to the respondent’s letter, the respondent considered the applicant’s collateral benefits in its calculations. The $2,230.89 lump sum paid was broken down as follows:
November 2 to November 7, 2021 - $22.76
November 22 to December 5, 2021 - $53.10
December 20, 2021, to January 2, 2022 - $355.70
July 4 to July 17, 2022 - $167.10
July 18 to August 19, 2022 - $1,632.23
17The respondent did not calculate or pay interest on the amount of $2,230.89. It also requested pay stubs from October 25, 2020, to October 24, 2021, an “updated and properly completed” OCF-2, an updated OCF-3, the complete short-term disability file, and copies of the applicant’s T4s from pre-accident to date.
18The respondent wrote the following to the applicant on May 2, 2023:
In our letter dated August 16, 2022, it is indicated that your IRB benefit is calculated to be $346.23 weekly, and $2,203.89 for the period from November 2, 2021. However, the letter should have stated that your IRB benefit is calculated to be $346.23 weekly for the period from July 18, 2022, taking into consideration your Short Term Disability Benefits from October 25, 2021, to July 17, 2022.
19On June 22, 2023, the respondent advised the applicant that there was an overpayment of her IRBs. The letter stated:
Upon re-calculation, your entitlement from November 2, 2021 to July 17, 2022 is $0.00 because you were receiving 100% STD coverage from October 25, 2021 to January 2, 2022, and 75% STD coverage from January 3, 2022 to July 17, 2022. Your entitlement is $0.00 because the coverage you received from STD is greater than the amount an Income Replacement Benefit provides, which is based on 70% of your gross weekly income.
As a result of this overpayment, you are responsible to repay TD Insurance a total of $16,080.09 for benefits that we have paid out on this claim.
20The respondent advised the applicant that if she was unable to repay that amount in a lump sum, it would reduce each subsequent IRB payment by up to 20% of the original benefit amount. It also requested additional documentation from the applicant.
21The applicant subsequently provided the respondent with Manulife’s short-term disability file, post-accident pay stubs, an earnings report, and an updated OCF-3. On August 1, 2023, the respondent indicated the following:
In a follow-up to our letter dated June 22, 2023, we advised that the Income Replacement has an overpayment, which is now a total of $17,257.25. To ease the process of this overpayment, we will collect the amount you owe by reducing each subsequent Income Replacement Benefit payment by up to 20% of the original benefit amount ($692.46). Therefore, bi-weekly we will be deducting $138.49 from your Income Replacement Benefit payment and issuing you a payment of $553.97, which will begin on August 5, 2023.
22The respondent acknowledged receiving the applicant’s short-term disability denial letter. It also requested clarification with respect to items noted in an earnings report, whether the applicant was disputing the denial, and whether she had applied for other collateral benefits.
23The respondent requested an updated OCF-3 on November 14, 2023.
24On December 4, 2023, the applicant’s counsel wrote the following email to the respondent:
My client informs me that TD has again deducted from her IRB payments. We have provided TD with a number of records (including the letter from TD employer dated July 13, 2022) and advised multiple times now that the STD payments ceased June 30, 2022. Why does TD continue to deduct from my client’s IRB payments?
25On December 19, 2023, the respondent advised that it had discontinued the IRB as it had not received the updated OCF-3. The respondent received an updated OCF-3 on December 28, 2024, and on January 4, 2024, advised that the applicant continued to be eligible for the benefit and would continue payments.
26On April 28, 2024, the respondent advised that it had obtained an accounting report from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PWC”), and that the applicant’s weekly IRB entitlement was $400.00. Based on the report, the IRBs payable for November 2, 2021, to March 25, 2024, totalled $32,892.28. The respondent indicated that the applicant would receive an electronic funds transfer in the amount of $6,001.66. It did not calculate or pay interest on that amount.
27On May 10, 2024, the applicant provided a letter to the respondent dated March 3, 2024, indicating that she had been approved for Canada Pension Plan Disability (“CPPD”) benefits.
Entitlement to IRBs
28As indicated above, despite the parties’ agreement regarding the applicant’s entitlement to and quantum of IRBs ($400.00 per week) as of the date of their submissions, the applicant requests an order declaring that she was entitled to IRBs at a rate of $400.00/week beginning July 1, 2022. She submits that her short-term disability benefits were terminated as of June 30, 2022, and therefore her IRB entitlement was $400/week commencing July 1, 2022. She indicates that this was confirmed in the PWC report.
29The PWC report does not state that the applicant’s entitlement to $400/week began on July 1, 2022. PWC’s report states that the applicant was entitled to the following weekly benefit amounts:
November 2, 2021 to June 30, 2022: $nil
July 1 to December 18, 2022: $294.05
December 19 to 31, 2022: $306.60
January 1 to July 2, 2023: $378.02
July 3, 2023 to March 25, 2024: $400.00
30The PWC report indicates that, in addition to collateral benefits, the applicant was entitled to employer sponsored benefits and benefit credits which were paid until July 2, 2023. She also received employer pension contributions up to December 17, 2023. PWC treated the value of these benefits as post-accident collateral benefits during the period she did not work.
31The applicant has not explained whether she disagrees with the PWC report. Further, she has not made submissions or provided evidence regarding the benefits and pension contributions that PWC took into account. I accordingly do not have adequate information in order to make the finding that the applicant requests I make. As such, I find that the applicant has not met her burden to prove that she became entitled to $400/week as of July 1, 2022.
Repayment
32I find that the respondent has not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that it is entitled to a repayment of IRBs paid.
33Section 52(1)(a) of the Schedule states that a person is liable to pay to an insurer any benefit that is paid to the person as a result of an error or as a result of wilful misrepresentation or fraud. Under s. 52(b), a person is liable to repay any IRB that is paid to the person if they were disqualified from receiving the benefit under Part VII, and under s. 52(c), a person is liable to repay any IRB to the extent of any payments received by the person that are deductible under the Schedule from the amount of the benefit.
34Pursuant to s. 52(2), if a person is liable to repay an amount, the insurer shall give the person a notice of the amount that is required to be repaid, and may provide a notice indicating that the insurer intends to collect the amount by reducing each subsequent payment of the benefit by up to 20 per cent of the amount that would otherwise be the amount of the benefit.
35If a notice under s. 52(2) is not given within 12 months after the payment of the amount that is to be repaid, the person to whom the notice would have been given ceases to be liable to repay the amount unless it was originally paid to the person as a result of wilful misrepresentation or fraud.
36The respondent submits that, as the PWC report confirms that IRB entitlement for certain periods after the accident were either nil or reduced by post-accident income, “the section 52 request for IRB overpayment is not unreasonable nor unwarranted”.
37The respondent also submits that the applicant’s receipt of CPPD benefits raises issues regarding overpayment. It argues that CPPD benefits are deductible from IRBs, but it has not deducted any amounts from the $800 biweekly that the applicant receives despite the possibility of an overpayment. It also indicates that it has not sought overpayment after the PWC report.
38The respondent has not indicated that it is withdrawing its request for a repayment. The applicant submits that the respondent has not formally advised her that there has been no overpayment. If the respondent is still seeking a repayment, it has not indicated an amount that it believes to be outstanding. The respondent has the onus of proving that it is entitled to a repayment. Its suggestion that there is a “possibility of an overpayment” without any amount or calculations is not persuasive. Further, aside from the letters of June 22 and August 1, 2023, there is no indication that the respondent has provided the applicant with a subsequent notice pursuant to s. 52(2).
39I accordingly find that the respondent is not entitled to a repayment pursuant to s. 52 of the Schedule.
Interest
40Interest applies on the payment of any overdue benefits pursuant to s. 51 of the Schedule. Section 51(1) states that an amount payable in respect of a benefit is overdue if the insurer fails to pay the benefit within the time required under the Schedule.
41The applicant submits that interest was never included with the lump sum payments of $2,230.89 or $6,001.66. On the first lump sum payment, she seeks interest calculated from November 24, 2021, which she argues is 10 business days following receipt of the completed OCF-3, to August 16, 2022. On the second lump sum payment, she seeks interest calculated at 1% per month, compounded monthly, from the dates the amounts were due to August 21, 2023, the date she filed her application, and then 4.8% prejudgment interest from August 21, 2023, to the date of this decision.
Interest on Payment of $2,230.89
42Section 36(4) of the Schedule states that within 10 business days after the insurer receives the application and completed disability certificate (OCF-3), the insurer shall pay the specified benefit, provide notice explaining why the insurer is not paying the benefit or advising the insured of the requirement for an examination under s. 44, or send a request under s. 33. Section 33(1) requires the insured to provide the insurer with any information reasonably required to assist the insurer in determining the applicant’s entitlement to a benefit. According to s. 33(6), the insurer is not liable to pay a benefit in respect of any period during which the insured person fails to comply with s. 33(1).
43The applicant submits that the insurer’s requests for documents were not made pursuant to s. 33. However, the applicant has not directed me to any authority that suggests the respondent must specifically reference s. 33 in its letter in order for it to be a valid request under that section. Section 33 requires that the information requested must be “reasonably required to assist the insurer in determining the applicant’s entitlement to a benefit”. The question before me is therefore whether the respondent’s requests were reasonably required in order to calculate the benefit, and whether the respondent failed to pay the benefit within the time required under the Schedule once it had the information required to calculate the benefit.
44The respondent submits that it is not liable to pay interest on the lump sum of $2,230.89 as the applicant did not provide information necessary to determine IRB quantum prior to the payment being made. It submits that it did not receive the OCF-2 until June 2022, despite requesting this on November 16 and December 15, 2021, and did not receive additional pay stubs until August 10, 2022.
45On June 3, 2022, the applicant provided the respondent with the OCF-2, an absence report from 2016 to 2022, and pre-accident paystubs for the period from September 13 to October 24, 2021. I find that the respondent was not reasonably able to calculate the applicant’s entitlement to the benefit until it received information regarding her income. This information was not provided by the applicant within 10 days of the requests pursuant to s. 33(1), and thus the insurer was not liable to pay the benefit prior to June 3, 2022. As such, I am not satisfied that the benefit was overdue prior to June 3, 2022.
46The respondent submits that, on June 23, 2022, it made a request for additional documents. That letter is not before me, so it is not clear what documents were requested. In any event, on July 20, 2022, the applicant provided the respondent with paystubs from August 16, 2021, to July 3, 2022.
47On August 10, 2022, after acknowledging receipt of the pay stubs, the respondent indicated that it was unable to determine the applicant’s entitlement to IRBs for the following reasons:
“-Please confirm the status of your return to work
-If you have not returned to work please advise us the status of your short term and long terms [sic] disability benefit
-The redacted summaries do not coincide with the pay stubs provided – kindly provide clarification pertaining to same
-Properly completed OCF-2 is still required
-Kindly provide an update [sic] Disability Certificate (OCF-3)”
48On August 16, 2022, the respondent wrote to the applicant and stated that “based on review of the submitted pay stubs”, it had determined that the applicant was entitled to $346.23 weekly. According to the letter, the calculation was based on the applicant’s income from September 27 to October 10, 2021.
49I am satisfied that, once the respondent received the OCF-2, pre-accident paystubs, and absence report, it had the information reasonably required to calculate the benefit and begin paying it. The letter of August 16, 2022, indicates that the respondent was able to calculate the benefit based on information from the pay stubs that had been provided on June 3, 2022, specifically her pre-accident income. The respondent does not argue in its submissions that other information was reasonably required to calculate the benefit, and in fact confirms that the IRB amount was calculated based on the income from the applicant’s paystubs from September 27 to October 10, 2021. Given this, I am not persuaded that the information subsequently requested by the respondent was required in order to calculate and begin paying the benefit.
50I note the respondent’s brief argument that, if no benefits are in dispute in this proceeding, they are not payable, and therefore interest is not payable. I disagree. The respondent did not rely on any authority indicating that its interpretation is correct. In my view, the respondent’s interpretation is not in line with the consumer protection mandate of the Schedule. Further, the Schedule specifies that interest is payable with respect to overdue benefits, and not just benefits that are the subject of a proceeding at the Tribunal. Finally, sections 51(3) and (4) establish different rules for the calculation of interest depending on whether the parties are engaged in a dispute at the Tribunal.
51As such, I find that interest on the $2,230.89 lump sum is payable pursuant to s. 51 from June 3, 2022, to August 16, 2022.
Interest on Payment of $6,001.66
52The applicant submits that when this lump sum amount was paid on April 28, 2024, the respondent simply calculated the amount by deducting how much was paid from the total amount that was due, rather than having PWC provide a fulsome calculation showing how much was owing to her for each time period. She submits that it is impossible to calculate how much interest is owed to her and from when interest is calculated. She instead requests that interest be calculated from July 1, 2022, which is the date she submits she became entitled to $400/week.
53I disagree with the applicant that the interest on the lump sum should be calculated from July 1, 2022. As indicated above, the PWC report does not state that the applicant’s entitlement to $400/week began on July 1, 2022.
54The applicant received $346.23 per week from August 19, 2022. The PWC report indicates that the applicant first began to be entitled to an amount greater than $346.23 as of January 1, 2023. I accordingly find that the applicant was being underpaid by the respondent as of January 1, 2023.
55The respondent did not explain why it did not pay interest on the second lump sum payment. It did not make submissions with respect to whether the benefit was overdue pursuant to s. 51, or how any interest should be calculated. The PWC report is evidence that the applicant was entitled to a greater amount than the respondent had previously calculated and paid. It is the respondent’s obligation to calculate and pay the correct amount of IRBs. It did not request further information pursuant to s. 33 until June 22, 2023, and when it received the requested documents, it still did not calculate the benefit correctly. In my view, the benefit was overdue as the correct amount was not paid to the applicant when it should have been.
56The applicant relies on s. 51(3) of the Schedule and submits that she is entitled to interest at 1% per month, compounded monthly, until August 21, 2023, when she filed her appeal at the Tribunal. Thereafter, she submits that she is entitled to prejudgment interest at 4.8% to the date of this decision in accordance with s. 51(4).
57Sections 51(3) and (4) state the following:
(3) Interest is payable at the rate of 1 per cent per month, compounded monthly, from the date on which the amount becomes overdue until the earlier of the following dates:
The date on which the overdue amount is paid.
The date, if any, on which interest becomes payable in accordance with subsection (4).
(4) In case of a dispute in respect of an insured person’s entitlement to statutory accident benefits or in respect of the amount of statutory accident benefits to which an insured person is entitled, interest on the benefits in dispute is calculated at the prejudgment interest rate described in subsection 128 (3) of the Courts of Justice Act that is used for past pecuniary loss, and is payable for the period that begins on the date on which an application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal is brought under subsection 280 (2) of the Act and ends on the date a settlement is reached or a decision is issued that finally disposes of the dispute.
58As indicated above, the parties acknowledge that the IRB issue is no longer in dispute. In my view, that issue was settled when the lump sum was paid on April 28, 2024. As such, I do not agree with the applicant that prejudgment interest should be calculated to the date of this decision. Instead, it should be calculated to April 28, 2024.
59I accordingly find that the applicant is entitled to interest with respect to the $6,001.66 paid pursuant to s. 51 of the Schedule. Interest shall be calculated in accordance with s. 51(3) from January 1 to August 21, 2023, and it shall subsequently be calculated in accordance with s. 51(4) up to April 28, 2024.
Award
60The applicant sought an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664. Under s. 10, the Tribunal may grant an award of up to 50 per cent of the amounts to which a person is entitled (including unpaid interest), together with interest pursuant to Reg. 664, if it finds that an insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed the payment of benefits.
61The applicant submits that there was a complete mishandling of her IRB claim, and that the respondent’s request for repayment and the amount taken by the respondent for repayment were unreasonable. The applicant seeks an award of 50% of the $6,001.66 lump sum paid, plus interest from April 28, 2024. She also seeks an award of 50% on the interest owed for the lump sums paid.
62The respondent submits that, as confirmed in the applicant’s submissions, IRB entitlement is not at issue for this hearing. It relies on Hazem v. TD General Insurance Company, 2023 CanLII 23602 (“Hazem”), and argues that as a special award is tied directly to benefits in dispute in a particular proceeding, and the applicant is not entitled to any amount of the benefit in dispute, the claim for an award is dismissed.
63I am not bound by Hazem, and the facts in that case are distinguishable from the ones before me. In Hazem, the applicant failed to prove entitlement to a quantum of IRB other than zero, whereas in the case before me, the applicant was entitled to a benefit which the respondent withheld or delayed. Further, the Tribunal in Hazem found that the respondent did not act in a way that would warrant an award.
64In any event, I am bound by the Divisional Court decision of McDonald v. Aviva Insurance Company, 2024 ONSC 6030, which states that s. 10 of Reg. 664 does not require that the amount of the benefit be adjudicated under the Schedule when the respondent has agreed to pay the claimed amount.
65The respondent submits that it acted reasonably and in good faith in adjusting the applicant’s claim, and that despite missing pertinent information to calculate IRB quantum, it nonetheless began paying IRBs on August 16, 2022, based on the information that it had. It submits that its request for additional documentation was for documents that were inextricably linked to determine ongoing IRB entitlement and quantum, and there is no evidence that it acted egregiously or in bad faith throughout the adjustment of the claim. The respondent also argues that the applicant did not obtain an accounting report to “meet her burden of proof for IRB quantum”.
66There is no requirement under the Schedule for an insured person to obtain an accounting report. The respondent is permitted to make reasonable requests pursuant to s. 33 but is ultimately required to use the information to determine the applicant’s entitlement to a benefit.
67The respondent erred in calculating the applicant’s IRBs and claiming a repayment of over $16,000. Its repayment letter was vague and did not include calculations. It indicated that the applicant’s entitlement to an IRB was $0 because she was receiving short-term disability benefits, even after it was clear that those benefits had ended. It then waited almost a year after alleging an overpayment to retain the services of PWC, after which the report revealed that the respondent’s calculations were erroneous. Despite this, the respondent never formally withdrew its claim for repayment. At no point in its submissions did it acknowledge that an error was made. In my view, the respondent’s delay in correctly calculating the benefit was unreasonable, especially while holding the prospect of repayment over the applicant’s head. Further, the respondent baselessly argued that it need not pay interest even after delaying the payment of a benefit so long as the Tribunal is not involved. I find that the respondent behaved in a manner that was stubborn, inflexible, and unyielding, and that the benefit was unreasonably withheld. As such, I find that an award is appropriate.
68In determining the quantum of a special award, the Tribunal has found that the following factors may be considered: (i) the blameworthiness of the respondent’s conduct; (ii) the vulnerability of the applicant; (iii) the harm or potential harm directed at the applicant; (iv) the need for deterrence; (v) the advantage wrongfully gained by the insurer from the misconduct; (vi) should take into account any other penalties or sanctions that have been or likely will be imposed on the insurer due to its misconduct; and (vii) the overall length of the delay.
69I find that the respondent’s conduct needs to be deterred, specifically delaying properly calculating the benefit and holding the prospect of repayment over the applicant’s head. Further, I give considerable weight to the length of the delay, given that the applicant was no longer working or receiving short-term disability benefits. This undoubtedly heightened the financial impact of the respondent’s delay. However, I also recognize that the respondent eventually sought out an opinion from PWC and ultimately paid the benefit owed to the applicant, which ended the delay and is a mitigating factor. As such, I do not believe that the respondent’s behaviour attracts the full 50% maximum allowable under Reg. 664. The withheld payment and unpaid interest, together with interest in accordance with Reg. 664, is just over $6,000.00. Taking the factors into consideration, I find that an award of $2,000.00 (approximately 33%) is appropriate.
ORDER
70The applicant has not met her burden to prove that she is entitled to $400.00 per week in IRBs as of July 1, 2022.
71The respondent is not entitled to a repayment of IRBs paid.
72The applicant is entitled to interest on the IRB payment of $2,230.89 from June 3 to August 16, 2022, pursuant to s. 51(3) of the Schedule.
73The applicant is entitled to interest on the IRB payment of $6,001.66. Interest shall be calculated in accordance with s. 51(3) from January 1 to August 21, 2023, and it shall subsequently be calculated in accordance with s. 51(4) from August 22, 2023, to April 28, 2024.
74The respondent is liable to pay an award of $2,000.00.
Released: November 7, 2025
Rachel Levitsky
Adjudicator