Rebbecca Phillips

The applicant sought payment for an occupational therapy assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit, arguing it was duplicative of two comprehensive occupational therapy assessments the applicant had already undergone in 2021.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that a further assessment was reasonable and necessary, as she did not provide evidence showing how the disputed assessment would gather new information or investigate a new condition.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was awarded.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant failed to submit his application (OCF-1) within the 30-day timeframe prescribed by section 32(5) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to meet its positive obligation under section 32(2) to assist the vulnerable applicant and provide the necessary forms, as it only left two voicemails and mailed a package to an incomplete address.

Consequently, the 30-day timeline was never triggered, and the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with his claim.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for occupational therapy, vocational assessments, case management, attendant care, and housekeeping.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and had returned to her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker.

The Tribunal found that the disputed treatment and assessment plans were not reasonable and necessary, relying on the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments which confirmed the applicant's independence in daily activities and her return to work.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a treatment plan for chiropractic services and massage in the amount of $2,425.47.

The insurer denied the benefit, relying on an insurer's examination by a neurosurgeon.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan to be reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating practitioners and the insurer's own occupational therapy assessor, who noted ongoing pain and functional deficits.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the treatment plan and interest on overdue benefits.

The applicant sought entitlement to various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic, massage therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, and assistive devices.

The Tribunal found that the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing right hip osteoarthritis, necessitating a hip replacement.

The Tribunal approved a May 2022 treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy, as well as a long-handled tub scrubber, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The remaining treatment plans were denied due to a lack of compelling evidence demonstrating their necessity or because the expenses were incurred prior to the submission of a treatment plan.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of treatment plans for occupational therapy, assistive devices, physiotherapy, and a driving rehabilitation assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant partially entitled to the occupational therapy services and assistive devices, noting that the reasonableness of the benefits must be assessed at the time they were proposed.

However, the Tribunal denied the physiotherapy services as duplicative and exceeding guideline rates, and denied the driving rehabilitation assessment due to a lack of compelling evidence of ongoing psychological impairment.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that his physical injuries, alleged pre-existing conditions, or psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for additional physiotherapy and psychological assessments were dismissed, along with claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including occupational therapy, home maintenance expenses, and equipment for a web design course.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the occupational therapy plan, including a treadmill and exercise app, as reasonable and necessary for her mental health recovery.

The Tribunal also approved the computer, printer, and textbook required to complete a previously approved web design course.

However, the Tribunal denied the claim for home maintenance and renovation expenses, finding they were regular property maintenance and not incurred as a result of the accident.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing osteoarthritis, psychological injuries, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions prevented recovery within the MIG, or that she suffered from a psychological injury or chronic pain as a result of the accident.

The applicant's injuries were found to be minor, and her claims for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and interest were dismissed.

The appellant sought a minor variance to permit a 3.0-metre balcony projection for a townhouse unit, double the 1.5-metre maximum permitted by the zoning by-law.

The Town's Committee of Adjustment denied the application, and the appellant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the enlarged balcony would create unacceptable adverse visual, noise, privacy, and overlook impacts on the abutting single-detached properties.

The Tribunal concluded that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was not minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed.