The claimant sought payment of home renovations. Adjudicator Johal explained that the onus is on the claimant to prove on a balance of probabilities that the renovations were reasonable and necessary. In this case, the renovations would only be reasonable and necessary if they provided the claimant access to areas of the home that were needed for ordinary living. Adjudicator Johal found the disputed treatment plan partially payable. Adjudicator Johal found that it was reasonable and necessary to renovate the primary entry to the home concluding that the pathway needed to be replaced because it was uneven and posed a tripping hazard and the handrail needed to be replaced because the claimant was unsteady on her feet. Adjudicator Johal found that any renovations to make the property wheelchair accessible were not reasonable and necessary, because the claimant could move through her house without any mobility aid and thus did not require a wheelchair. He also found that renovations to enable the use of a four-wheeled walker were not reasonable and necessary in areas of the home that allowed a 48 inch turn radius as this was not a standard set by the Ontario Building Code. Adjudicator Johal concluded that a heated shed was not reasonable and necessary for storing the claimant’s mobility scooter during the winter, because the claimant’s husband and attendant care providers could move the scooter inside for her, and because there was no evidence that the winter weather would impact the scooter’s battery.
