What the panel ordered
Petition for Reconsideration is DENIED.
What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
Lien claimant provided evidence of payments made by defendant to lien claimant for similar services, establishing that 89.3% of the amounts billed for invoices in 2015 was the reasonable value. Defendant did not provide evidence to dispute these payments or to justify applying the Copy Service Fee Schedule retroactively.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Lien claimant provided documentary evidence of payments made by defendant for similar services, showing that 89.3% of amounts billed was accepted as reasonable value for 2015 invoices.
Favours Applicant prevailed
Established the reasonable value of the services for the invoice at issue, supporting the award to lien claimant.
Defendant did not provide evidence to dispute the payments referenced in lien claimant's exhibit or to justify applying the Copy Service Fee Schedule retroactively.