[34] What the Tribunal does not explain is how this balancing reasonably results in the conclusion that ownership costs should be completely excluded from the calculation when it comes to reimbursing a recipient for the costs of travel to medical appointments by private vehicle. In this regard, the evidence before the Tribunal was clear. Those costs, even when ownership costs were factored in, are considerably lower than the cost of the alternative modes of travel available to the Appellant – namely, taxi or agency driver. Thus, in the face of a mandatory obligation to pay the benefit, if the Appellant did not use his car, the taxpayers of Ontario would incur a greater cost than they would incur by reimbursing the Appellant for the expenses associated with the use of his personal vehicle, even if those expenses include ownership expenses.
_____________________________________________________________
FSCO Tweets @FSCOTweets 1h1 hour ago
Do you work in the life #insurance industry? Subscribe to our e-newsletter for the latest news & bulletins http://ow.ly/rcXU305AxPg