Stefania Cristina Sdao

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $2,750 to the responding party.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to various treatment plans and assessment costs following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to properly weigh medical evidence, ignored arguments about previously paid treatment, and failed to provide reasons for denying specific treatment plans.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal had properly considered and weighed the evidence, addressed the applicant's arguments, and provided sufficient reasons for denying all the treatment plans in dispute.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to two treatment plans for chronic pain and physiotherapy that were denied by the insurer.

Following a reconsideration order, the Licence Appeal Tribunal reheard the matter and found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome, supported by credible self-reporting and medical evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that both treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to treat the applicant's chronic pain and functional impairments.

The insurer was ordered to pay the disputed amounts of $9,464.40 and $1,312.63, along with interest on the overdue benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing hypothyroidism and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that her pre-existing condition prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG cap, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's.

All claims for benefits were dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $200 in costs for repeatedly filing evidence late.

The applicant sought dispute resolution services after the respondent insurer denied several treatment plans for chiropractic care, a chronic pain program, and an attendant care assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant's evidence did not link the treatment plans to specific rehabilitation goals or address the insurer's examination reports.

The application was dismissed and no interest was awarded.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claim for statutory accident benefits related to chronic pain.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by failing to request complete copies of the OCF-18 treatment plans, which were central to the dispute.

Furthermore, the Tribunal erred in its evaluation of the medical evidence by inappropriately requiring the applicant's medical reports to explicitly reference the proposed treatment plans and by failing to consider the limits of the insurer's examination reports.

The matter was ordered to be reheard.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for chronic pain treatment and physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's medical evidence lacked precision and failed to link the proposed treatments to the accident or demonstrate how they would improve his function.

Relying on the respondent's medical assessors, who concluded the applicant's injuries had resolved, the Tribunal held the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The claim for a chronic pain assessment was also dismissed because the applicant failed to submit the required Treatment and Assessment Plan (OCF-18).

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought non-earner benefits.

The Insurer terminated the benefits and argued the Applicant was statute-barred from proceeding to arbitration because the two-year limitation period had expired.

The Arbitrator found that the Insurer's termination letter was confusing and did not constitute a clear and unequivocal refusal to pay benefits, as it simultaneously requested an election form and provided a right to dispute.

Therefore, the limitation period was not triggered, and the Applicant was not precluded from proceeding to arbitration.

The applicant sought payment for three physiotherapy treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claims.

At the hearing, the applicant failed to provide the actual treatment plans or any submissions addressing the reasonableness and necessity of the expenses.

The adjudicator dismissed the claims, finding it impossible to determine whether the benefits sought were reasonable and necessary without the treatment plans.

The plaintiff, Winmar, a contractor, brought a motion for summary judgment against the property owner (Lixo), the insurer (Intact), and the insurance adjuster (Granite) for unpaid work following a fire and subsequent flood.

Intact and Granite also brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss Winmar's claims against them.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding Winmar's claim against Lixo, particularly concerning the scope of work, the timing of the lien, and the quantum owed, as much of the work was related to a separate flood incident for a tenant (Club V) and not clearly authorized by Lixo.

Winmar's motion against Lixo was dismissed, but the action against Lixo was not dismissed.

The court granted Intact and Granite's motions for summary judgment, dismissing Winmar's claims against them, finding no direct contractual relationship, no benefit gained by them, and no jurisdiction under the Construction Lien Act for claims against non-owners or for quantum meruit/unjust enrichment against them.