Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-002992/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:
Glenda Primo
Applicant
And
Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATORS:
Rebecca Hines, Member
Neil Levine, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Mohamed Elbassiouni, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Nicole Dowling, Counsel
Court Reporters:
Jo Velimirovic
Prashanth Thambipillai
HEARD: by Videoconference:
February 3, 4, 5 and 6, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Glenda Primo, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on September 4, 2015, 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, Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
2In May 2022, the Tribunal determined that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the subject accident under Criterion 8, (based on a mental and behavioural impairment) and found marked impairments in the spheres of adaption and concentration, persistence and pace.
ISSUES
3The issues in dispute are:
i. Is the applicant entitled to $6,000.00 per month for attendant care benefits (“ACBs”) from September 1, 2023 to date and ongoing?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to $892.01 ($10,032.60 less $9,140.59 approved) for a cell phone (the disputed amount is $225) and robot vacuum (the disputed amount is $667.01), proposed by Novo Medical Services Inc. in a treatment plan (“OCF-18”) dated October 14, 2022?
iii. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
4After considering both parties’ submissions and all of the evidence we find:
i. The applicant is entitled to an ACB in the amount of $3,062.92 per month from September 1, 2023 to date and ongoing.
ii. The applicant is entitled to $225.00 for the cost of the cell phone proposed by Novo Medical Services Inc. in the OCF-18 dated October 14, 2022. The applicant is not entitled to $667.01 for the balance of the robotic vacuum proposed in the same OCF-18.
iii. The applicant is entitled to interest on ACBs and the partial approval of the OCF-18 in the amount of $225.00 for the cell phone.
iv. The applicant is not entitled to an award pursuant to s.10 of Regulation 664.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Award Claim
5The respondent requested that the applicant’s claim for an award be excluded as an issue in dispute because she failed to provide full particulars of the award claim pursuant to the Tribunal’s order dated August 14, 2024. The order stated that particulars were to be produced no later than 30 days following the production of the adjuster’s log notes. As of the date of the hearing, no particulars of the award claim had been produced by the applicant. The respondent submits that it would be procedurally unfair to allow the applicant to proceed on this issue because it has a right to know the case it must meet in order to defend the allegations. Consequently, it will be prejudiced if this issue is allowed to proceed.
6The applicant acknowledged that full particulars of the award claim were not provided to the respondent in advance of the hearing. However, she submits that the respondent advised that the adjuster was available to testify and therefore there is no prejudice to the respondent. Further, it is well established that a claim for an award can brought at any time prior to a decision being rendered.
7To ensure procedural fairness we ordered the applicant to produce the full particulars of her claim for an award to the respondent and the Tribunal by the end of the day on the first day of the hearing. However, we determined that the particulars provided were vague and lacking in detail. As a result, we determined that the adjuster’s testimony was unnecessary because the basis for the award claim was unclear. Accordingly, we determined that the applicant could make any submissions regarding her claim for an award in closing submissions. However, in light of our decision, we find the adjuster’s testimony would not have been helpful because the applicant did not submit sufficient evidence to support her claim for an award which will be discussed further below.
Updated OT Report from Respondent
8The applicant opposed the respondent’s request to rely on the updated attendant care assessment report and Form 1 of Ronald Findlay, occupational therapist (“OT Findlay”), dated January 6, 2025. The applicant argues that it would be procedurally unfair to allow the respondent to rely on this report because it was served on her a few weeks prior to the hearing. As a result, neither her or her assessor were able to properly review and respond to it.
9The respondent submits that the applicant is not prejudiced by this updated report because the assessor recommended an increase in ACBs which it maintains helps the applicant’s position. Further, the report and Form 1 is relevant to the issues in dispute because it speaks to recent observations of the applicant’s function.
10We declined to exclude the report because it is relevant to the issues in dispute. However, because of its late service and the applicant’s inability to respond to it we confirmed that the report would be given reduced weight.
ANALYSIS
Is the applicant entitled to $6,000.00 per month for ACBs from September 1, 2023 to date and ongoing?
11The applicant is entitled to $3,062.92 in ACBs from September 1, 2023 to date and ongoing, upon proof that the benefit has been incurred.
12Section 19 of the Schedule provides that an insurer is required to pay an ACB for all reasonable and necessary expenses incurred on behalf of an insured person as a result of an accident for services provided by an aid or attendant. A Form 1 prepared by an OT sets out the services and amount of care an individual requires as well as the monthly amount payable. If a person sustains a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident, the maximum amount of ACBs payable is $6,000.00 per month.
13Both parties agree that the applicant requires ACBs, however, there is a significant disagreement regarding the amount. The applicant relies on the attendant care assessment report and Form 1 prepared by OT Zakrzewski who determined that she needs $6,932.90 per month in ACBs, which is 20 hours per day. The respondent relies on the report and Form 1 of OT Findlay who recommended $992.92 per month, which is 19.25 hours of ACBs per week. It also relies on the updated report and Form 1 of OT Findlay noted above which recommended a slight increase.
14The applicant argues that she requires significant supervisory ACBs because of her accident-related physical, psychological and cognitive impairments. She submits that she lacks motivation to get out of bed every day to carry out her basic needs and requires significant assistance from the personal support worker (“PSW”) to prompt, motivate and supervise her in carrying out her daily activities. She contends that she requires almost 24-7 supervision for safety reasons. For example, she has repeatedly left the stove on, put metal in the microwave, left her house keys in the door, left water running and has suicidal ideations. The applicant maintains that she is a danger to herself if left unsupervised. The applicant testified on her own behalf, as did her son; Aulda Philips, PSW; Emmanual Cyriac, social worker; Dr. Mohammed El-Saidi, a psychiatrist; and OT Zakrzewski.
15The respondent submits that the applicant does not require 24-7 supervision as she has the physical functional capacity to carry out her daily activities. Further, it argues that providing the applicant with the amount of ACBs recommended by OT Zakrzewski would prevent her from recovering from her injuries by inhibiting her participation in the pre-accident activities that she is capable of completing independently. It also asserts that the applicant is not a safety risk and still has the functional capacity to drive which is inconsistent with someone that requires almost 24-7 supervision. The respondent relied on the testimony of OT Findlay.
16The parties agree that the applicant has been diagnosed with chronic pain, Major Depressive Disorder, Somatic Symptom Disorder, and Mild Neurocognitive Disorder due to multiple etiologies (Traumatic Brain Injury, pain, emotional distress). As noted above, the applicant was also deemed to be catastrophically impaired because of a psychological impairment.
17Overall, we find the opinions and reports of both parties’ OT assessors flawed. For example, OT Zakrzewski did not carry out any functional testing and heavily relied on the medical record and the applicant’s self-reports about her function. Consequently, we find the amount of ACBs recommended by the OT inflated. In contrast, OT Findlay’s assessment heavily focused on the applicant’s physical ability to carry out her activities of daily living and seemed to downplay the extent of her psychological impairment. Consequently, we find the ACBs recommended by OT Findlay insufficient.
18The applicant testified that she continues to suffer from headaches, neck and shoulder pain, upper and lower back pain, and numbness in her legs and hands. She also stated that because of her psychological symptoms she lacks the motivation to complete basic activities of daily living, and feels hopeless, depressed and dependent on others. She also struggles with psychological issues including anger, hopelessness, concentration problems and memory loss. She noted that she found it difficult to manage changes and becomes angry when she was unable to find items in the grocery store.
19The applicant also testified that she will not get out of bed and shower or bathe because of chronic pain and a lack of motivation unless the PSW is there to encourage and assist her. She requires assistance with dressing and undressing, and with grooming, noting that she would not take care of her hair nor wash it unless her PSW provides assistance. Also, the applicant noted that cooking was now difficult because she is unable to multitask, and she leaves the stove on frequently. Likewise, she is unable to complete basic tasks like making her bed, cleaning her shower, tub, toilet or sink. She said that because of her psychological symptoms she will not get out of bed at night to go to the bathroom and wakes up in the morning with soiled bedclothes and bedding.
20We find the applicant’s testimony credible because her physical and psychological functional limitations were corroborated by her son, her PSW and the medical reports throughout the claim. The applicant’s son testified that he regularly witnesses his mother have trouble with pain, mobility and completing basic tasks. He stated that she lacked motivation and does not take care of her basic personal hygiene. Further, she has problems with memory because she misplaces items, has left the stove on and housekeys in the door, and is argumentative. The PSW testified that the applicant was distressed by pain, and lacked motivation to get out of bed, shower, complete personal hygiene tasks, or eat. She said she spends a considerable amount of time comforting and calming the applicant as well as assisting her with activities of daily living.
21We find the applicant’s struggles with carrying out her activities of daily living was supported by the clinical notes and records of her rehabilitation support worker (“RSW”), family doctor and social worker. The following are some examples:
a. Clinical notes and records from an emergency room visit to Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital stated that the applicant needed assistance with medications, and feels overwhelmed, disheveled, with a sad affect and depressed (Dr. Mile Stefanac, April 21, 2024).
b. Clinical notes and records from the applicant’s family physician, Dr. Sofian Al-Samak, stated that the applicant required assistance with cooking, keeping track of appointments and medication, mobility, motivation and mood. (November 29, 2023)
c. Clinical notes and records from the applicant’s RSW, Emmanuel Cyriac, noted recurring anxiety issues, pain, concentration, depression and stress leading to difficulties in activities of daily living.
d. Clinical notes and records from sessions with the applicant’s rehabilitation therapist, Bhavana Posina, note that the applicant is anxious, irritable, distracted, unfocused and disinterested. She reported fatigue and pain, mood fluctuations, and emotional difficulties (August 7, 2024; August 14, 2024; August 20, 2024; September 10, 2024).
22Although we do not accept the entirety of Mr. Cyriac’s testimony because he did not inspire confidence when discussing his memory of his appointments with the applicant that were not documented in his CNRs, his notes did reflect the applicant’s ongoing psychological and emotional struggles and were consistent with other witnesses.
23Because we do not accept the opinion of either parties’ assessor in determining the applicant’s entitlement to ACBs we have taken a practical approach based on the testimony of the witnesses and medical evidence before us. The chart below summarizes our findings based on the number of minutes per week for the levels of care. Our rationale follows.
| Applicant Form 1 OT Zakrzewski | Respondent Form 1 OT Findlay | Tribunal’s Finding | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | minutes/week | minutes/week | minutes/week |
| Dressing/undressing | 140 | 0 | 140 |
| Grooming | 180 | 0 | 170 |
| Feeding | 630 | 315 | 630 |
| Mobility | 280 | 210 | 210 |
| Extra laundering | 30 | 0 | 30 |
| Total: | 1260 | 525 | 1180 |
| Level 2 | minutes/week | minutes/week | minutes/week |
| Bathroom hygiene | 140 | 0 | 140 |
| Bedroom hygiene | 140 | 0 | 140 |
| Ensure comfort & safety | 2520 | 0 | 0 |
| Clothing | 140 | 0 | 70 |
| Basic Supervisory Care | 3360 | 630 | 1260 |
| Coordination of AC | 60 | 0 | 60 |
| Total: | 6360 | 630 | 1670 |
| Level 3 | minutes/week | minutes/week | minutes/week |
| Exercise | 210 | 0 | 210 |
| Skin care | 35 | 0 | 35 |
| Monitor medication | 70 | 0 | 70 |
| Bathing | 140 | 0 | 140 |
| Maintenance | 70 | 0 | 0 |
| Supervision | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total: | 525 | 0 | 455 |
Level 1
24We prefer the majority of the recommendations made on the Form 1 of OT Zakrzewski under Level 1 care. The OT recommended 10 minutes per day, 7 times a week to assist the applicant with dressing and undressing for a total of 140 minutes per week. We find this amount reasonable because the evidence supports that the applicant requires ongoing cueing and assistance with these tasks because of her ongoing chronic pain and poor motivation as a result of her psychological impairment.
25With the exception of shaving, we also accept OT Zakrzewski’s recommendations for assistance with grooming: 45 minutes twice a week for shampooing and blow drying the applicant’s hair and 10 minutes 7 times a week with styling the applicant’s hair, and 10 minutes per week for toenail care. We find the applicant does not require assistance with shaving because the PSW testified that the applicant does not have any hair on her legs. For the same reasons noted above, we find the applicant requires assistance with these tasks because of poor motivation and limitations as a result of her ongoing chronic back and shoulder pain which limit her ability to bend and reach overhead.
26We also prefer the time recommended by OT Zakrzewski with feeding over the amounts recommended by OT Findlay. OT Zakrzewski recommended 90 minutes per day 7 times a week for assistance with this task, whereas OT Findlay recommended 15 minutes per day 21 times per week. OT Findlay’s report noted that the applicant expressed concerns with multi-tasking and delayed recall which may affect her ability to complete complex meal prep in a safe and prudent manner. Consequently, she would benefit from check-in assistance during these times to ensure safety and turning off the stove. We prefer the time allotted by OT Zakrzewski because we find the evidence supports that the applicant has left the stove on and puts metal in the microwave because of problems with memory and multi-tasking. We find the amounts recommended by OT Findlay insufficient from a safety perspective and also because the applicant lacks the motivation to carry out these tasks.
27We do not accept the amounts recommended by OT Zakrzewski for assistance with mobility as we find the applicant has the functional capacity to stand up from a sitting position and do not find the evidence supports that she requires assistance with transfers. For this reason, we find 30 minutes per day for mobility recommended by OT Findlay more practical for supervision while walking outdoors.
28We accept the 30 minutes allotted once per week by OT Zakrzewski for extra laundering because we heard evidence from the applicant and her son about bed wetting because the applicant lacks the motivation to get out of bed during the night to go to the bathroom and change bedclothes after accidents. For these reasons, we find the applicant requires a total of 1180 minutes per week for Level 1 care.
Level 2
29With respect to bathroom and bedroom hygiene, we accept OT Zakrzewski’s recommendation of 40 minutes 7 times a week for assistance with these tasks because the applicant lacks motivation to carry out these tasks because of chronic pain and her psychological impairment. For the same reasons, we partially accept that the applicant requires assistance in arranging her clothing for the day and putting them away. However, we find 20 minutes per day for assistance with this task excessive and find that 10 minutes per day for assistance with this task is reasonable.
30In the category of comfort and safety in the bedroom environment, we do not accept OT Zakrzewski’s recommendation that the applicant requires 360 minutes per day 7 times a week for this assistance. OT Zakrzewski testified that he uses this category as a “catch all” for things like companionship such as watching a movie or providing emotional support. The applicant’s PSW testified that she watches movies with the applicant and plays card games with her in her bedroom. The respondent submits that the category of comfort and safety in the bedroom environment is not meant to be a catch all for everything. It relies on the Tribunal’s decision in 17-001627 v. Certas Direct Insurance Company (“17-001627”), 2017 Canlii 99139 (ON-LAT) where the adjudicator explained that the Ontario Society of Occupational Therapist Guideline support that this type of supervisory assistance applies in a hospital environment or where an insured is bedridden and has significant mobility issues. We agree that the amounts recommended by OT Zakrzewski for comfort and safety in a bedroom environment are not supported based on the case before us and find that any assistance for emotional support is covered under basic supervisory care.
31We also find the amounts allotted on OT Zakrzewski’s Form 1 for basic supervisory care excessive because the OT assigned 480 minutes per day of supervisory care and provided little rationale in his report to explain. For example, he did not ask the applicant relevant questions to ascertain how she would respond or whether she could respond in an emergency. Consequently, we find the OT made assumptions.
32We find that the applicant has the ability to respond in an emergency given that she can make phone calls and is on the landlord’s list in the event of an emergency. Further, OT Findlay’s assessment confirmed that she could make her way to the stairwell and that she could call 911 in the event of an emergency. We also note that the applicant still drives post-accident which requires a degree of cognitive ability. During the applicant’s testimony she made a comment that “the balcony looked good” in relation to her inability to cope with her accident-related impairments. We stopped the applicant’s testimony to ensure she was safe and asked whether she had any intent to harm herself and advised that if she did we would stop the hearing and call 911. She confirmed that she had no intent to harm herself and we believed her. Although we find this concerning, we have no medical opinion from a doctor to support that the applicant is an active suicide threat and requires this level of supervision. Nor were there entries in the medical record to support that the applicant is a suicide risk. Further, Dr. El Saidi testified that he does not have any concerns about the applicant being an active suicide threat and did not render an opinion that she requires supervisory care because of same.
33Having said that, we find that OT Findlay’s recommendation of 30 minutes three times a day for supervision impractical and insufficient. As highlighted above, we find that the applicant requires some custodial care because she has left the stove on, has left the keys in the door and struggles in accessing the community such as going grocery shopping. Her PSW has witnessed her to have angry outbursts at store employees during these excursions and the applicant decompensates when faced with stressful situations. We also find that she requires significant cueing to complete her personal care tasks. Consequently, we find 180 minutes (3 hours) per day for supervisory care to be reasonable and necessary to provide emotional support and to cue and assist the applicant in carrying out her daily activities such as grocery shopping.
Level 3
34With the exception of maintenance of assistive devices, we find the balance of the recommendations made by OT Zakrzewski’s under Level 3 care to be reasonable and necessary. The applicant requires cueing and supervision when exercising, cueing and physical assistance with bathing, and assistance with maintaining and administering her medication. We find the time proposed by OT Zakrzewski for these tasks reasonable based on the applicant’s aforementioned limitations primarily because of poor motivation because of her psychological impairment. We also find the time allotted for coordinating ACBs reasonable and necessary for the same reasons. We were not directed to any assistive devices that the applicant uses that would require maintenance so have not considered the time allotted for this task. We consequently accept that the applicant requires 455 minutes per week for Level 3 care.
35When the time we have determined to be reasonable and necessary under the different levels of care are calculated as per the formula on the Form 1, we find the applicant is entitled to $3,062.92 per month in ACBs ($1,115.43 for Level 1; $1,316.52 for Level 2 and $630.97 for Level 3)
Were the ACBs incurred by the applicant?
36Under subsection 3(7)(e) of the Schedule, in order for the applicant to receive payment for attendant care benefits, there must be evidence that the expense was incurred. An incurred expense requires that the following conditions be met:
i. The applicant received the service to which the expense relates;
ii. The applicant paid the expense or promised to pay the expense or is legally obligated to pay the expense; and
iii. The person who provided the service did so:
a. in the course of their employment, occupation or profession in which he or she would ordinarily 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.
37The applicant submitted the invoices and activity logs of WS Management Inc. for the time period in dispute which sufficiently addresses the above requirements. The activity logs contained the services the PSW routinely completed per day. The activity logs do not provide a breakdown of how much time was spent on each task or break down the invoice according to the level of care. In addition, the PSW’s testimony also suggests that she may have done different tasks depending on the day and some may have overlapped with housekeeping tasks that fell outside of the scope of attendant care. However, based on the service provider logs we are unable to determine the amount of time spent on each task and note that the time did not match up on a few of the activity logs when compared to the invoices for the same month. Despite this fact we find that the activity logs and invoices sufficient to support that the applicant has incurred ACBs for the time period in dispute and find the invoices payable up to the amount of $3,062.92 per month from September 23, 2023 to date and ongoing, upon proof that the benefit has been incurred.
38The applicant is entitled to $225.00 for the cell phone which was partially denied by the respondent. We find the applicant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that the amount of $667.01 ($1,017.00 less $349.99 approved) for a robot vacuum is reasonable and necessary.
39Section 14 and 15 of the Schedule provide that an insurer is only liable to pay for medical expenses that are reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident. The applicant bears the onus of proving on a balance of probabilities that any claimed medical expenses are reasonable and necessary.
40The respondent partially approved this treatment plan leaving $225.00 in dispute for the cost of a cell phone and $667.01 in dispute for a robotic vacuum. The respondent partially denied 50% of the cost of the cell phone because it would also be used for the applicant’s personal use. We find that even if this is the case, it is unlikely that the applicant would have required a new cell phone had she not been placed in these circumstances as a result of the accident which rendered her catastrophically impaired. Therefore, we find the applicant is entitled to the balance of $225.00 for the cell phone.
41The respondent partially approved the robotic vacuum in the amount of $319.00, leaving $667.01 in dispute. We find that the applicant is not entitled to the balance for the cost for the robotic vacuum because she did not submit sufficient evidence to justify the cost of same. We find OT Zakrzewski’s testimony regarding how he arrived at the cost for this device unhelpful in justifying the full amount of the OCF-18 is reasonable and necessary. For this reason, we prefer the respondent’s position that robotic vacuums from a reputable online source, is closer to the $319.00 which was approved by the respondent.
42For the above-noted reasons, we find $225.00 of the denied OCF-18 for the cell phone to be reasonable and necessary. We see no reason to interfere in the respondent’s partial approval for the robotic vacuum.
Interest
43Interest applies on the payment of any overdue benefits pursuant to s. 51 of the Schedule. The applicant is entitled to interest on ACBs in accordance with the amount we have determined to be reasonable and necessary. She is also entitled to interest on the partial approval of $225.00 for the OCF-18 for the cell phone.
Award
44The 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 total benefits payable if it finds that an insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed the payment of benefits.
45In analyzing whether an insurer’s conduct in withholding or denying a benefit warrants an award an insurer’s behaviour must be seen as excessive, imprudent, stubborn, inflexible, unyielding, or immoderate. The threshold for an award is high and the case law is well established that an award is not meant to punish the unsuccessful party at a hearing or penalize an insurer for getting it wrong.
46The applicant argues that she is entitled to an award because the respondent has demonstrated a pattern of unreasonably withholding her entitlement to accident benefits. For example, the Tribunal previously found that she was entitled to an award in its decision in G.P. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (“GP”), 2022 CanLII 45306. The applicant also relied on an adjuster’s log note which reinstated the applicant’s entitlement to benefits in support of her claim for an award. Finally, she maintains that the respondent did not send updated medical records to OT Findlay when he assessed her entitlement to attendant care benefits.
47The respondent submits that the applicant has not established that it is liable to pay an award in this case. It submits that it approved the applicant’s entitlement to an ACB based on the report of OT Findlay. Further, it recently obtained an updated report to adjust the applicant’s ongoing entitlement to the benefit. The respondent relied on the above-noted decision in 17-001627 where the adjudicator stated that an award is not warranted in a situation where an insurer relies on a report to deny a benefit even if the decision is incorrect. Further, the fact that the Tribunal previously found that an award was payable is irrelevant to the present case. Finally, the applicant failed to pinpoint any references in the adjuster’s log notes and refer to any evidence to support that the respondent has acted unreasonably in its denial of any of the issues in dispute.
48We find that the applicant has not met her burden in proving that the respondent is liable to pay an award. We find the applicant heavily relied on the fact that the Tribunal previously ordered an award in support of her argument that an award is warranted in this case. We agree with the respondent that this factor alone has little bearing in this case. Further, the applicant did not highlight the evidence to support her position that the respondent has acted in an excessive, imprudent, stubborn, inflexible, unyielding, or immoderate manner in the denial of the benefits in dispute. In addition, we found that both OT reports were flawed to a certain degree so we cannot fault the respondent for relying on its report. Finally, the applicant did not highlight what medical documents the respondent failed to provide to its assessor or indicate when those medical documents were provided to the respondent. For these reasons, we find the applicant has not met her onus in proving that an award is warranted in this case.
ORDER
49For the above-noted reasons, we make the following order:
i. The applicant is entitled to an ACB in the amount of $3,062.92 per month from September 1, 2023 to date and ongoing.
ii. The applicant is entitled to $225.00 for the cost of the cell phone proposed by Novo Medical Services Inc. in the OCF-18 dated October 14, 2022. The applicant is not entitled to $667.01 for the balance of the robotic vacuum proposed in the same OCF-18.
iii. The applicant is entitled to interest on ACBs and the partial approval of the OCF-18 in the amount of $225.00 for the cell phone.
iv. The applicant is not entitled to an award pursuant to s.10 of Regulation 664.
Released: April 8, 2025
__________________________
Rebecca Hines
Adjudicator
__________________________
Neil Levine
Vice-Chair