Bernard Trottier

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar alleged the appellant acted as an unregistered dealer through his numbered company in two vehicle transactions and made a false statement on his registration application by failing to disclose pending charges.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and that he had made a false statement.

However, noting the appellant's 21-year history without prior complaints and the isolated nature of the transactions, the Tribunal substituted its opinion for the Registrar's.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant's registration be approved subject to conditions for one year, including a prohibition on being the final signatory on vehicle contracts.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including psychological services, a chronic pain assessment, an attendant care assessment, an orthopaedic assessment, and physical therapy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the chronic pain assessment, as medical evidence supported ongoing pain symptoms.

However, the Tribunal denied the higher psychologist rate for services provided by a psychotherapist.

The Tribunal also denied the attendant care and orthopaedic assessments, as well as further physical therapy, finding them not reasonable and necessary given the applicant's return to work and studies, and the lack of objective orthopaedic impairment.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed due to procedural non-compliance.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar alleged the appellant acted as an unregistered dealer through his numbered company and made a false statement on his registration application regarding pending charges.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and that he had made a false statement.

However, the Tribunal substituted its opinion for the Registrar's, finding that the public interest could be adequately protected by granting the registration subject to conditions, including a prohibition on being the final signatory on vehicle transactions for one year.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his psychological impairments and chronic pain warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries were minor.

The adjudicator found the applicant failed to provide compelling, corroborating medical evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment.

The adjudicator excluded late-filed clinical notes and records and relied on the respondent's insurer's examination reports, which found symptom exaggeration and no non-minor injuries.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans for chiropractic services, a chronic pain program, and an orthopaedic assessment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a concussion, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, finding that the applicant's dizziness pre-dated the accident, his pain complaints were likely degenerative, and his psychological testing was normal.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, and since the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on left shoulder injuries, pre-existing spine conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the shoulder injuries were minor, the pre-existing spine conditions did not preclude recovery within the MIG, and the claims of chronic pain and psychological impairment were uncorroborated and inconsistent with the evidence.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to treatment plans for chiropractic services and a functional abilities evaluation (FAE).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator gave little weight to the applicant's chronic pain diagnosis, noting it did not meet the AMA Guides criteria and was contradicted by surveillance evidence showing the applicant engaging in full-time studies and physical activities without visible pain.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's procedural motions to exclude the respondent's surveillance and insurer's examination reports.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's pain complaints were a clinically associated sequela to her minor injuries and had subsided over time without causing functional impairment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's psychological issues were predominantly unrelated to the accident.

As the injuries were deemed minor, the proposed treatment plans for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment outside the MIG limit were not payable.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a concussion, which falls outside the definition of a minor injury, and removed her from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for physical therapy, finding it not reasonable and necessary based on the insurer's examination.

The claim for a psychological assessment was dismissed because the applicant failed to attend requested insurer's examinations.

Claims for osteopathy, vision therapy, and eyeglasses were also dismissed because they were submitted on claim forms without the required treatment plans under s. 38(2) of the Schedule.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently denied.

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

As a preliminary issue, the insurer argued the applicant was statute-barred from disputing a chiropractic treatment plan due to the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found the insurer's initial denial notice was defective under the Smith criteria, meaning the limitation period did not begin until a valid notice was later provided; thus, the claim was not statute-barred.

On the merits, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to prove her psychological impairments or chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

However, because the insurer failed to provide a valid denial notice within 10 business days for the first chiropractic treatment plan, it was required under s. 38(11) of the Schedule to pay for services incurred during the period of non-compliance.

All other treatment plans were denied, and the claim for a s. 10 award was dismissed.

The Registrar brought a motion to remove the appellant's unlicensed representative, Abhinav Yadav, from acting in an appeal regarding a proposal to revoke a cannabis retail operator licence.

The Tribunal found that Yadav's potential dual role as a material witness and advocate would impair the administration of justice.

Furthermore, Yadav had a personal and financial interest in the litigation as the intimate partner of a director of the appellant corporation, meaning he did not qualify for the Law Society's exemption for unlicensed family members providing uncompensated legal services.

The motion was granted and Yadav was removed as representative.

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

The insurer denied funding for physiotherapy and medical expenses, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's spine impairments, including disc bulges and an annular tear, as well as chronic pain with functional impairment, placed him outside the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the disputed treatment plan, medical expenses, and interest on the overdue amounts.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries, including chronic pain and whiplash-associated disorder, warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the claim, relying on insurer's examinations indicating the injuries were minor soft-tissue strains and the applicant maintained a high level of functionality, working full-time as a dentist.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate his injuries fell outside the MIG or that he suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plan for chiropractic services was not payable.

The applicant sought entitlement to various medical assessments and interest on income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the proposed psychological and chronic pain assessments were reasonable and necessary, and not reasonably available through OHIP, ordering them payable with interest.

However, the orthopaedic assessment was denied as available through OHIP, and the physiatry assessment was denied as duplicative.

The Tribunal also denied the claim for interest on IRBs, finding the insurer's delay in payment was justified by the applicant's failure to provide reasonably requested documentation under section 33 of the Schedule.

A claim for a bad faith award under section 10 was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle after it was driven by an individual whose licence was subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the driver's licence status, as he merely accepted the driver's representation without checking the expiration date or conditions.

However, the Tribunal found that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The appellant, who relied on social assistance and supplemented his income through construction work, demonstrated that he had no reasonable alternative to the vehicle for visiting potential customers and transporting tools.

The Tribunal concluded that the loss of the vehicle would cause immediate, significant, and lasting economic loss, and ordered the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed entitlement to physical therapy, transportation, and psychological assessments, arguing that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to justify removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's expert evidence and concluded the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant real estate brokerage appealed an Administrative Penalty Order (APO) issued by the HCRA for failing to produce a complete trade file, specifically a for-sale MLS listing, during the execution of a search warrant.

The Tribunal found that the HCRA was reasonable in determining that the appellant contravened the Act by failing to produce the required information.

However, the Tribunal found the penalty amount of $3,913.04 to be unreasonable, as the contravention had a lower impact on the investigation than assessed by the HCRA.

The Tribunal varied the penalty amount to $978.26.

The appellant appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The Registrar issued the order because the appellant's overall violation rate exceeded 87% and progressively worsened to over 142%, placing it in the bottom 0.2% of all Ontario CVOR certificate holders.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to take appropriate corrective measures and that there was reason to believe it would not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's order, finding that modifying the order with conditions would not adequately protect highway safety.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for various defects in their new home, including issues with kitchen countertops, HVAC performance in two rooms, and the placement of exterior concrete steps.

The Tribunal found that the countertops and HVAC systems met the applicable Construction Performance Guidelines and dismissed those claims.

However, the Tribunal found a breach of warranty regarding the exterior concrete steps, which partially obstructed garage access contrary to the architectural drawings.

The appeal was allowed in part, and Tarion was ordered to pay $500 from the guarantee fund to compensate for the repair of the steps.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical impairments, specifically complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in her right arm, along with psychological impairments, prevented her from engaging in suitable employment, even on a part-time basis.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay IRBs of $400 per week from September 1, 2022, plus interest.

The applicant's claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 for unreasonable withholding of benefits was dismissed.