Lisa Bishop graduated with Honours from the University of Waterloo, with a Bachelor of Arts in Legal Studies, in 2010.
In 2013, she received her Juris Doctor from the University of Windsor, Ontario and was called to the Bar in June, 2015. Lisa commenced articling with Rooz Law in 2014 and remained as a full time associate at Rooz Law since completing her articles.
While obtaining her law degree in Windsor, Lisa worked with a downtown Windsor poverty law clinic working on matters before the Social Benefits Tribunal, Landlord and Tenant Board and Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Further, she was involved in the clinic’s Wage Theft Campaign project, educating the community about Employment Standards Legislation.
Lisa now works with personal injury matters related to Accident Benefits and liability. Lisa works with clients in claims for Accident Benefits at all levels including Examinations under Oath, Mediations, Settlement Conferences, Arbitrations and appeals. Lisa has successfully litigated matters at the Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and the Licence Appeal Tribunal.
In her free time, Lisa enjoys playing soccer, painting and spending time with friends and family.
"In my opinion, the Tribunal considered and weighed all evidence and at the end of the day preferred the applicant’s evidence and found that the applicant met the burden of proof."
"“I find on all of the evidence that the Applicant is entitled to receive IRBS in the amount of $400.00 per week from September 28, 2016 to October 23, 2016 and from March 12, 2018 to date and ongoing. I find that the Applicant is entitled to Attendant Care Benefits… find that the applicant is entitled to interest…"
"this failure means that Aviva effectively denied his NEB claim without reasons- despite having received evidence in the form of the OCF-3 that he met the test for NEBS… DC was entitled to be paid NEBs…"
"the Applicant has met his onus that on a balance of probabilities that the Treatment Plan in its entirety is reasonable and necessary…the goal is to “evaluate the extent of the patient’s chronic injuries and psychological complaints and to provide a prognosis and recommendations for recovery” to assist the applicant in a return to activities of normal living…"
"there is extensive evidence of the significant emotional distress that the Applicant has experienced since the accident. Therefore, I find that any psychological services recommended by this treatment plan (and then incurred after Oct 17, 2017) are both reasonable and necessary…. I find the respondent’s reliance on Dr. Hanna’s changing opinion was an unreasonable withholding of this assessment…an award, is therefore, merited"
"the psychological injury sustained as a result of the motor vehicle accident is not predominantly minor and, as a result, the applicant’s treatment is not subject to the Guideline…the applicant is entitled to the cost of examination for the psychological and chronic pain assessment, respectively… It is reasonable and necessary that the applicant be given an opportunity to explore whether she suffers from chronic pain."
"I find that the Tribunal violated the rules of nature justice and procedural fairness by failing to address the issues of Unifund’s alleged procedural breaches and the possible import of s.38 of the Schedule in the circumstances…"
"I find it reasonable and necessary that the applicant be afforded an opportunity to explore the nature of his chronic pain, and be provided a prognosis and recommendations for recovery…"
"the Applicant sustained injuries which fall outside the MIG and the Applicant is not bound by the MIG funding limit… the applicant is entitled to payment of the psychological assessment plan…the applicant is entitled to an award pursuant to Ontario Regulation 664 in the amount of $1,110.95, because the respondent unreasonably withheld payment for the psychological assessment and treatment plans."
"T.A. is entitled to an award in the amount of 25% of the amount T.A. is owed from NEBS and for the treatment plan for the psychological assessment in the amount of $2,197.29…I find that Aviva breached its requirement under s.36(4) of the Schedule…"