Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 25-000367/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:
Kelsey Vaillancourt
Applicant
and
Intact Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Mary Henein Thorn
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Sherilyn Pickering, Counsel
For the Respondent:
David Koots, Counsel
Court Reporter:
Prashanth Thambipillai
HEARD by Videoconference:
July 22, 23, 24, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Kelsey Vaillancourt, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on October 15, 2022, 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, Intact Insurance Company, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
ISSUES
2The issues in dispute are:
i. Is the applicant entitled to attendant care benefits (“ACB”) in the amount of $4,484.86 ($6,000.00 less $1,515.54 approved) per month from July 18, 2024, to October 6, 2024?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to ACB in the amount of $5,157.20 ($6,000.00 less $842.80 approved) per month from October 7, 2024, to date and ongoing?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to $219.95 ($2,484.13 less $2,244.38 approved less $19.95 withdrawn) for transportation and form completion in relation to a treatment plan/OCF-18, proposed by Rehab First Inc. in an OCF-18/treatment plan (plan) dated January 31, 2023?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to $5,562.14 for assistive devices (mattress, mattress protector and a pillow) proposed by Rehab First Inc. in a plan dated May 29, 2023?
v. Is the applicant entitled to $19.80 ($2,284.13 less $1,995.00 less $149.63) for travel for a service provider, proposed by Rehab First Inc. in a plan dated November 20, 2023?
vi. Is the applicant entitled to $200.00 ($2,198.30 less $1,995.00 approved less $3.30) for an Occupational Therapy and Attendant Care Needs Assessment, (combined assessment) proposed by Rehab First Inc. in a treatment plan dated February 7, 2023?
vii. Is the applicant entitled to $50.39 ($2,200.00 less $2,149.61 approved) for a psychological assessment, proposed by Fox Psychological in a plan dated May 24, 2023?
viii. Is the applicant entitled to $2,200.00 for a psychovocational assessment proposed by Fox Psychological in a plan dated April 16, 2024?
ix. Is the applicant entitled to 2 medical cannabis prescriptions in the amount of $73.45 $19.52, submitted on 2 (OCF-6)’s one dated November 2, 2023, and the other dated May 21, 2024?
x. Is the applicant entitled to $41.61 for medical cannabis and for Metformin submitted on a claim form (OCF-6) dated May 21, 2024?
xi. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
xii. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
3At the beginning of the hearing the applicant advised she is withdrawing the following issues:
i. Is the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit in the amount of $400 week from October 22, 2022, to the date?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to $1,297.25 ($2,893.25 less $1,596.00 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by KA Tossios Physiotherapy in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) dated October 26, 2022?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to $1,031.00 for optometric services, proposed by Cardinal Vision Development & Rehabilitation in a plan dated December 13, 2022?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to $698.78 for physical rehabilitation services, proposed by Bergin Motion in a plan dated February 13, 2023?
v. Is the applicant entitled to $2,647.65 for physical rehabilitation services, proposed by Bergin Motion in a plan dated April 5, 2023?
vi. Is the applicant entitled to $648.79 for psychological services, proposed by Fox Psychological in a plan dated June 14, 2023?
vii. Is the applicant entitled to $100.25 for physical rehabilitation services, proposed by Bergin Motion in a plan dated September 13, 2023?
viii. Is the applicant entitled to $273.91 for chiropractic services, proposed by Mapleview Chiropractic Centre in a plan dated November 22, 2023?
ix. Is the applicant entitled to $1,246.28 for optometric services, proposed by Cardinal Vision Development & Rehabilitation in a plan dated December 14, 2023?
x. Is the applicant entitled to $1,030.98 for optometric services, proposed by Cardinal Vision Development & Rehabilitation in a plan dated February 26, 2024?
xi. Is the applicant entitled to $2,420.50 for social work counselling, proposed by Rehab First Inc. in a plan dated August 27, 2024?
xii. Is the applicant entitled to $400.00 for visual therapy assessment, submitted on a claim form (OCF-6) dated January 16, 2023?
xiii. Is the applicant entitled to $9.50 for bank fee, submitted on a claim form (OCF-6) dated December 22, 2023?
xiv. Is the applicant entitled to $1,221.00 for dental services by Dr. Dove, submitted on a claim form (OCF-6) dated August 23, 2023?
xv. Is the applicant entitled to $203.30 for an Occupational Therapy and Attendant Care Needs Assessment, proposed by Rehab First Inc. in a treatment plan dated February 7, 2023?
4Pertaining to issue number 5 and 16 as listed in the application, the applicant withdrew the mileage portion of the proposed plans.
5The parties agreed the amended dates for the attendant care services is from July 18, 2024, to date and ongoing.
RESULT
6I find that:
i. The applicant is not entitled to ACB for the periods in dispute;
ii. The applicant is not entitled to additional transportation fees or form completion expenses;
iii. The applicant is not entitled to the assistive devices (mattress, mattress protector and a pillow);
iv. The applicant is not entitled to the assistive devices in dispute;
v. The applicant is entitled to the travel expenses for a service provider;
vi. The applicant is not entitled to an Occupational Therapy and Attendant Care Needs Assessment;
vii. The applicant is not entitled to a psychological assessment;
viii. The applicant is entitled to a psychovocational assessment;
ix. The applicant is not entitled to 2 prescriptions for medical cannabis;
x. The applicant is entitled to the prescribed Metformin; and
xi. The respondent is not liable to pay a s.10 award or interest.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
7At the start of the hearing the applicant requested an accommodation for health reasons. I ruled that if her condition arose, I would stand down the hearing and reconvene.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is not entitled to ACB from July 18, 2024, to October 6, 2024
8For the following reasons, I find that an attendant care benefit in the amount of $4,484.86 July 18, 2024, to October 6, 2024, is not reasonable and necessary.
9Section 19 of the Schedule states that an insurer shall pay for all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of an insured person as a result of an accident for attendant care services (ACBs) provided by an aide or attendant. Section 42(1) of the Schedule provides that an application for ACBs must be in the form of, and contain the information required to be provided in, the version of the document entitled Assessment of Attendant Care Needs (“Form-1”).
10Section 3(7) provides further guidance on when an expense is incurred:
i. The insured person has received the goods for services to which the expense relates;
ii. The insured person has paid the expense, has promised to pay the expense or is otherwise legally obligated to pay the expense; and
iii. The person who provided the goods or services a) did so in the course of the employment, occupation or profession in which he or she would ordinary have been engaged, but for the accident, or b) sustained an economic loss as a result of providing the goods or services to the insured person.
11The applicant submitted an (“Form-1”) dated November 30, 2022, recommending $10,282.84 per month for attendant care services by Occupational Therapist Angela Hubbard. The respondent approved $1,515.54 per month based on the recommendation of Occupational Therapist, Kugathasan Shoabana’s Form 1 dated August 9, 2023, leaving a differential of $4,484.86 which remains outstanding and in dispute.
12The applicant testified because of the accident she suffered a concussion, migraines, lower back, shoulder and neck pain, reduced mobility, dizziness, irritability, anger, fatigue, auditory perceptions, cognitive impairments, difficulty with sleep, chronic pain and vertigo. She also testified her pre-existing diabetes and DID medical conditions were exacerbated because of this accident.
13Due to her dizziness, migraines, physical and psychological issues, she testified she needs the maximum allowable amount of attendant care services benefits available to her.
14The applicant testified that an incident occurred with her PSW, she lost trust in the PSW she had, therefore she let her go. She has not replaced that PSW and has not incurred any further PSW expenses post July 18, 2024. Therefore, she did not have proof of incurred costs to provide to the Tribunal from July 18, 2024, to October 6, 2024, pursuant to the requirement of s. 19 of the Schedule.
15It is the applicant’s onus to establish that the expenses she claims were “incurred” as defined in the Schedule.
16I have considered section 3(8) of the Schedule but given the parties have not lead evidence that any attendant care services were incurred, it does not apply.
17Without proof of incurred expenses, it is unnecessary for me to consider the parties’ submissions on the applicant’s entitlement to attendant care benefits. The absence of proof of incurred expenses is determinative.
18I find the applicant has not met her onus on a balance of probabilities she is entitled to ACB for the period from July 18, 2024, to October 6, 2024, therefore I find the respondent is not liable to pay for the benefit.
The applicant is not entitled to ACB from October 7, 2024, to date and ongoing
19The applicant testified she continues to require ACB. She has not submitted an updated Form 1 or any new invoices since July 18, 2024.
20The respondent adjusted the quantum per month for ACB based on the Occupational Therapist Shoaban Kugathasan completion of a (Form 1) dated August 9, 2023, to $842.80 per month.
21The applicant submits she is entitled to the full allowable amount due to the injuries she sustained from the accident.
22It is her testimony that she found it difficult to find a PSW who could provide quality services for that amount of money ($842.80) which would be of assistance to her. She testified that often she found the PSW’s she interviewed had a language barrier that made it difficult for her to communicate with them and would trigger her anxiety and level of stress which may also trigger her DID. Therefore, she chose not to hire a replacement PSW. She is asking the Tribunal for the full amount allowable so that she can find someone she can work with.
23The respondent submits that the applicant should be able to find a PSW within the hourly rate the respondent has approved.
24I have taken into considered section 3(8) of the Schedule but given the parties have not lead evidence that any attendant care services were incurred, it does not apply.
25Without proof of incurred expenses, the applicant has not met her onus as defined in the Schedule.
26Without proof of incurred expenses, it is unnecessary for me to consider the parties’ submissions on the applicant’s entitlement to attendant care benefits. The absence of proof of incurred expenses is determinative.
27I find the applicant has not met her onus on a balance of probabilities she is entitled to the disputed amount of $4,484.86 for ACB, therefore I find the respondent is not liable to pay for the disputed amount.
Transportation and form completion costs is not reasonable and necessary
28To receive payment for a treatment and assessment plan under s. 15 and 16 of the Schedule, the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating on a balance of probabilities that the benefit is reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident. To do so, the applicant should identify the goals of treatment, how the goals would be met to a reasonable degree and that the overall costs of achieving them are reasonable.
29The applicant claims $219.95 for the Occupational Therapist’s Angela Hubbard’s travel time and form completion in an OCF-18 dated November 20, 2023. Her submissions on this issue are the reasonableness and necessity of the fees. She simply asserts that the expenses are reasonable, without providing further insight into the costs.
30The respondent simply asserts the cost for the travel time and form completion is not reasonable and necessary.
31The onus remains with the applicant to show that the claimed expenses satisfies the requirements of s. 15 of the Schedule, and she has not done so. I have no basis upon which to find that the outstanding amounts are reasonable and necessary expenses, therefore the expenses are not payable.
Assistive Devices are not reasonable and necessary
32The applicant is not entitled to a new mattress, mattress protector and a pillow.
33The applicant testified that due to the dizziness, nausea, and her physical impairments, she needs a new mattress, mattress protector and a pillow to assist her with getting a proper sleep and enable her to safely get in and out of bed. She testified that prior to the accident she had no issues with the mattress she had. It is her position that a bed with a remote would assist her in getting in and out of bed easier and limit the safety risks.
34An OCF-18 submitted to the respondent was completed by Tanya Purevich for a mattress, mattress protector and a pillow dated May 29, 2023. She states the benefit of the assistive devices is to promote safety, function, and a graduated return to pre-collision activities.
35Occupational therapist Angela Hubbard concluded during an assessment conducted on May 11, 2023, that the condition of the applicant’s mattress was bad, it appeared concave and did not appear to provide support. She testified that given the applicant suffered a concussion, sleep is very important to her health and well being and a good mattress would be an essential part of that restorative sleep. She did not provide an opinion as to what kind of bed would be suitable, she simply testified that the applicant would benefit from a new mattress.
36The applicant cites various Tribunal decisions where a new mattress has been granted.
37The respondent submits the applicant had a very old mattress which was used by her parents then handed down to the applicant. There isn’t any evidence to support that a new mattress is required due to the injuries the applicant sustained in the accident.
38It is the opinion of Dr. Mohamed Khaled, Physician, that a new mattress is not reasonable or necessary. Given that her mattress was already 10 or so years old, he opines it would have to be replaced regardless of the accident. He also opines the applicant’s injuries were uncomplicated soft tissue injuries that normally heal within a year. In his opinion, there is no medical correlation between the use of special pillows and mattresses and a person’s functional improvement and pain and therefore the assistive devices are not reasonable and necessary.
39I am not persuaded that the applicant has met her burden to prove on a balance of probabilities that this treatment plan is reasonable and necessary. I find that the underlying need for a new mattress is based on the applicants self-reported fatigue and safety concerns and not a defined goal. I agree with the respondent and Dr. Khaled her mattress is very old and most certainly in need of a replacement. Although I take into consideration OT Hubbard recommended a mattress rather than a complex sleep system which the applicant chose on her own. I agree that pain relief and restorative sleep are reasonable goals, however, I find the request is not supported by medical records indicating that the applicant has a sleep disorder which supports the assistive devices listed in the OCF-18. I find this to be distinguishable to the cases provided by the applicant.
40On a balance of probabilities, I find the claimed expenses does not satisfy the requirements the Schedule, therefore I find the assistive devices are not reasonable and necessary.
The applicant is not entitled to transportation costs
41The applicant is not entitled to the travel expenses for a service provider.
42The respondent denied mileage in the amount of $19.80 submitted in an OCF-18 dated January 31, 2023, submitted by Angela Hubbard, it submits the mileage is not reasonable or necessary.
43The applicant did not provide further submissions beyond the reasonableness and necessity of the mileage.
44I find the applicant has not demonstrated how the claimed expenses satisfies the requirements of s. 15 of the Schedule, therefore, I have no basis to find that the outstanding amounts are reasonable and necessary expenses.
45The applicant claims $19.80 for the Occupational Therapist’s travel time. The applicant’s submissions on this issue are the reasonableness and necessity of the fees. She simply asserts that the expenses are reasonable, without providing further insight into the costs.
46I have no basis upon which to find that the outstanding amount is reasonable and necessary, therefore the request is denied.
The denied portion of the psychological assessment is not reasonable and necessary
47I find the applicant has not met her burden on a balance of probabilities that she is entitled to a psychological assessment.
48The respondent denied a portion of an OCF-18 in the amount of $50.30 as part of a psychological assessment dated April 15, 2023. The OCF-18 was submitted by Psychologist Dr. Jiha Humayan.
49The applicant did not provide further details about what the denied portion is for, she gave no further submissions at all.
50The respondent also did not provide any submissions regarding the denial.
51Given that no submissions were made, I find the applicant has not demonstrated how the claimed expenses satisfy the requirements of s. 15 of the Schedule, therefore, I have no basis to find that the outstanding amount is reasonable and necessary.
The psychovocational assessment is reasonable and necessary
52I find a psychovocational assessment reasonable and necessary.
The applicant submitted an OCF-18 authored by Dr. Jiha Humayun Psychological Associate dated April 15, 2024, recommending a vocational assessment to the respondent which was denied.
53The applicant testified that prior to the accident she was working as a PSW which required both physical and mental strength. Post accident due physical and psychological limitations she is no longer able to keep up with the demands of that position and she is now unable to return to work. As a PSW she must be able to lift over 100 lbs, use lifts, dress and undress her clients, reposition them from a bed to a chair using lifts, apply medical creams, laundry and bathroom care. She testified with her dizziness, headaches, exacerbation of the DID and other limitations, she would not be able to care for someone elderly with these limitations.
54In support of her position, a disability certificate (OCF-3) completed by OT Hubbard dated November 23, 2023, indicates the applicant has been diagnosed with concussion, whiplash, migraines, dizziness, fatigue, insomnia, psychological issues, visual disturbances and pain. It also concludes the applicant is unable to return to her pre-accident employment.
55Dr. Maione in a report dated March 19, 2025, and Dr. Humayun, in a progress report dated April 12, 2024, opined that the applicant can no longer work in her previous field due to her physical and psychological limitations and would benefit from a vocational assessment.
56Section 44 assessor Bruno Rositano, Vocational Rehabilitation Specialist conducted a paper review and submitted a report on May 12, 2024. He concluded the vocational assessment is not reasonable and necessary because there hasn’t been a conclusive determination that the applicant has functional limitations that would prevent her from working at her pre-accident occupation. He bases his opinion on his review of other section 44 assessors’ who determined the following their reports.
i. Dr. Khaled made a determination that the applicant’s physical prognosis is good for a complete functional recovery.
ii. Danny Monck, Kinesiologist, conducted an assessment and provided an opinion in a report dated March 3, 2025. He opined the applicant overall was normal in her physical functioning for the exception of 75% neck flexion, some right shoulder pain, and was slightly guarded during testing.
iii. Psychologist, Dr. Paul Robinson opined that the applicant’s mental health prognosis is fair and with continued mental health treatment the applicant is expected to improve.
iv. Dr. Brandon Kucher, Neurologist, opined in his report dated May 26, 2023, that the applicant at most suffered a concussion/m TBI which would most likely resolve within 6-9 months and that her prognosis is good. He also opined form a physical and functional limitation standpoint, the applicant’s self reporting was inconsistent with his observations during his assessment.
v. Dr. Gilbert Yee, Orthopedic Surgeon, also assessed the applicant and provided a report dated March 3, 2025. He found the applicant is not suffering a complete inability to engage in any employment or self-employment for which she is suited.
57Further, although Dr. Robinson opined that the applicant’s mental health can improve with treatment, he also opined in his Psychological Assessment Report dated February 22, 2023, that the applicant’s psychological difficulties will result in reduced efficiency in various aspects of the applicant’s activities including pre-accident employment.
58Dr. Khaled also opined her prognosis is good for a complete functional recovery however, he also acknowledges that she has persistent vertigo and dizziness symptoms.
59Upon review of the evidence before me, I am not persuaded by the respondent’s argument. I am persuaded by the applicant’s testimony, and the findings of her assessors. I find the respondent’s assessors agree the application can function and return to work but they have not concluded that the applicant can return to work as a PSW. In the absence of an analysis of her pre-accident employment and her ability to function in that role, I am not persuaded that their findings are conclusive that she can continue as a PSW. I find the recommendations of the applicant’s assessors reasonable given her impairments from the accident. Both parties agree the applicant has sustained injuries form the accident, and the applicant has not undergone an assessment to determine if the applicant can complete the expected tasks as a PSW. In light of that, I find a psychovocational assessment is reasonable and necessary.
60For those reasons I find on a balance of probabilities that the applicant’s request is reasonable and necessary. She is entitled to the treatment plan for a psychovocational assessment.
Prescription Medical Cannabis $73.45 & $41.61
61I find the applicant is not entitled to the two prescriptions for medical cannabis.
62Two OCF-6’s were submitted to the respondent for medical cannabis prescription. One was dated November 2, 2023, in the amount of $73.45 and another dated May 21, 2024, for a cannabis in the amount of $41.61.
63The applicant testified that medical cannabis helps her to control mood, migraine headaches and pain symptoms. It takes the edge off better than any other medication.
64Dr. Khlaled determined none of the applicant’s accident-related diagnoses warrants the consideration of medical marijuana use. He further opined that other medications may be useful for the applicant’s symptoms however, based on his clinically relevant research, there is no situation where medical canniboids are recommended for the treatment of chronic pain, anxiety, PTSD or depression. In fact, it is his opinion that the use of marijuana it may cause potentially more harm.
65I find that the applicant has not met her onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that these treatment plans for medical marijuana are reasonable or necessary. The applicant reported to Dr. Khaled during his assessment on April 14, 2023, that prior to the accident she partook in marijuana. She has not provided corroborating medical evidence that the medical marijuana is reasonable and necessary for her accident-related condition. Further, the applicant has not identified the goals of the treatment, or how the goals would be met and that the overall costs of achieving them are reasonable.
66For those reasons, I find on a balance of probabilities the applicant has not met her onus that these expenses are reasonable and necessary.
Metformin in the amount of $19.52 is reasonable and necessary
67I find the applicant is entitled $19.52 for the Metformin prescription.
68The applicant testified that prior to the accident her diabetes was under control, and she did not require medication to control it. She testified that post accident, because of her physical impairments, she is unable to move as much, and the result is her diabetes requires medical management through a prescription of Metformin.
69Also noted in the applicant’s family doctor’s records Dr. Amanda Maione, is a note dated February 6, 2023, indicating the applicant’s diabetes was well under control since 2016 with diet and exercise. A second note found in the doctor’s clinical notes and records dated April 4, 2023, indicates the applicant is unable to diet properly and exercise since her concussion and that the applicant’s activity has decreased post-concussion which has increased her A1c level.
70The respondent takes the position that Metformin is a medication used to control high sugar levels in the blood for diabetics. This prognosis is unrelated to the accident or any of the applicant’s injuries.
71I am persuaded by the applicant’s testimony; I find the request for Metformin reasonable and necessary. The applicant reported to Dr. Kucher, Shoabana Kugathasan and Dr. Khaled that she managed her pre-accident diabetes through diet and exercise pre-accident.
72The applicant worked and earned income as a PSW which allowed her to purchase the appropriate dietary foods to keep her diabetes under control. While diabetes itself is not a condition caused by the accident, I correlate her inability to continue working to earn that income to purchase the foods and her inability to stay as active direct contributions to the need for this medication to keep her diabetes under control to the accident.
73I find that the applicant has satisfied her onus to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the expense for Metformin is reasonable and necessary.
Award
74The applicant is not entitled to an award.
75Under s. 10 of Reg. 664, the Tribunal may award up to 50% of the total benefits payable if it determines that the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed the payment of benefits. The Tribunal has determined that an award is justified where the delay or withholding of benefits by the insurer is unreasonable conduct, meaning “behaviour” which is excessive, imprudent, stubborn, inflexible, unyielding or immoderate.” The onus is on the applicant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent’s conduct meets these criteria.
76The applicant submits the respondent acted in bad faith when it was provided by the applicant’s medical documentation that supported her accident-related injuries and it chose to deny or partially approve treatment plans submitted by the applicant based on the opinions of the section 44 assessors.
77The applicant further submits that she has optional benefits in the amount of $1,000,000 for non-catastrophic med/rehab and attendant care.
78The respondent takes a strong position that an award is not warranted in this case. The applicant has not met her onus to meet the test that the respondent’s actions warrant a special award.
79The respondent further submits standard is not perfection it made its decisions based on medical opinions and what was reasonable and necessary.
80I find it is well settled that an award under Regulation 664 should not be ordered simply because an insurer denied treatment plans based on the opinion of section 44 assessors. Pertaining to the issues in dispute, the applicant has not persuaded me that the respondent has acted in an excessive, imprudent, stubborn, or inflexible manner. I find the respondent adjusted the file in a manner that is reasonable. It relied on the opinions of its section 44 assessors and based on those opinions it a determination.
81The applicant is not entitled to an award.
Interest
82Interest applies on the payment of any overdue benefits pursuant to s. 51 of the Schedule.
83I find the applicant is entitled to interest on the overdue payment of benefits on the treatment plans for the psychovocational assessment and the prescription Metformin in accordance with the Schedule.
ORDER
i. The applicant is not entitled to attendant care benefits;
ii. The applicant is not entitled to transportation and form completion costs;
iii. The applicant is not entitled to the cost of assistive devices;
iv. The applicant is not entitled to the cost of travel for the provider;
v. The applicant is not entitled to the balance remaining for an Occupational Therapy and Attendant Care Needs Assessment;
vi. The applicant is not entitled to the balance of the psychological assessment;
vii. The applicant is entitled to a psychovocational assessment;
viii. The applicant is not entitled to the cost for medical cannabis;
ix. The applicant is entitled to the cost of Metformin;
x. The applicant is entitled to interest on the treatment plan for the psychovocational assessment and the prescription Metformin; and
xi. The respondent is not liable to pay a s.10 award.
Released: November 19, 2025
Mary Henein Thorn
Adjudicator