3 total
Application for accident benefits dismissed as applicant failed to prove injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline.
The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that chronic pain and a psychological condition removed him from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence, such as clinical notes and records or psychological assessments, to substantiate his claims.
Due to significant treatment gaps and lack of documentation, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.
The application for treatment plans, assessments, and an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Following a conference call, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file witness statements and other documents by a specified deadline.
The applicant failed to comply, requested and received an extension, but again failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal for over four months.
The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with his obligations under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure without reasonable justification and dismissed the application as abandoned.
OSPCA compliance order revoked as the Act requires actual, not future, distress at the time of issuance.
The appellant appealed an order issued by the OSPCA requiring him to provide daily turnout or exercise for three stallions returned to his farm.
The OSPCA issued the order because the farm lacked a turnout paddock, arguing the horses would be deprived of exercise and thus in distress.
The Animal Care Review Board revoked the order, finding that Section 13(1) of the OSPCA Act requires an animal to be in actual distress at the time an order is issued, not 'deemed' or 'future' distress.
The Board concluded there was no evidence the healthy stallions were in distress when the order was issued, noting that walking in-hand is an acceptable form of exercise and the horses were only at the farm temporarily.
The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to compel the appellant to disclose the current location of the horses.
