Stephanie Robyn Weir

The applicant father sought expanded parenting time and decision-making responsibility for his two children, and reconciliation counselling for the older child.

The court considered the best interests of the children, including the impact of historical family violence and the mother's potential alienation.

The court ordered increased unsupervised parenting time for the younger child, and immediate commencement of therapeutic reconciliation counselling for the older child.

The court declined to order joint decision-making at this stage and denied the applicant's request for security for costs, while emphasizing that prior cost orders must be paid.

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

The insurer denied the claims and requested section 44 assessments, which the applicant failed to attend, arguing the notices were invalid.

The Tribunal found the insurer's notices complied with the Schedule and the assessments were reasonably required.

Consequently, the applicant was held to be statute-barred from proceeding with her application under section 55(1)2 of the Schedule due to her non-compliance.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was barred from claiming IRBs under s. 31(1)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because she intentionally failed to notify the insurer of a material change in risk.

Specifically, the insurer alleged the applicant moved from Quebec to Ontario prior to the accident but maintained her Quebec-based insurance policy, which carried a significantly lower premium.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been residing and working in Ontario since February 2016, prior to the April 2017 accident, and failed to disclose this change to the insurer.

The Tribunal concluded this was a material misrepresentation that prejudiced the insurer.

The applicant's claim for IRBs was barred, and her request for relief from forfeiture and costs were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that their OCF-10 election was valid and final, and that they were not entitled to a non-earner benefit.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact and violated procedural fairness.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal properly considered the evidence regarding the election, the limitation period, and the applicant's inability to carry on a normal life.

The adjudicator also found no procedural fairness violation, as the applicant was given an opportunity to cross-examine the adjuster on clarified log notes but chose not to do so.