Bernard Trottier

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

The respondent denied the treatment plans for a psychological assessment and psychological services, asserting the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant filed an application with the Tribunal more than two years after the denials.

The Tribunal found the respondent's denial notices were valid and initiated the limitation period.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the LAT Act, finding the delay was significant, there was prejudice to the respondent, and the applicant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation granting them $7,500 in compensation for a delayed closing of their new home.

The appellants sought $278,244.60 in compensation, arguing that the builder breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the mandatory Addendum.

The Tribunal held a preliminary issue hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction to award compensation exceeding the $7,500 maximum set out in s. 7(2) of Regulation 165/08 under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal found that it does not have jurisdiction to award compensation beyond the statutory maximum, and that claims for breach of contract outside the Act's warranty framework must be pursued in the Superior Court of Justice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after another individual drove the vehicle with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship, primarily due to the health and safety risks posed to her 16-year-old daughter, who recently developed epilepsy and requires reliable transportation for potential medical emergencies.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle and that the impoundment posed a threat to the health and safety of a person ordinarily transported by the vehicle.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after her estranged husband was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove the driver's licence was not suspended.

However, the Tribunal found that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship, as the appellant had no reasonable alternative transportation to commute 96 km to work, and the loss of the vehicle would result in immediate, significant, and lasting economic loss and potential loss of employment.

The Registrar was ordered to release the impounded vehicle.

The Appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claim for financial loss under s. 14(2) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Appellant argued the Builder failed to substantially perform the contract because the home's foundation was built higher than she desired, making it inaccessible due to her mobility challenges.

The Tribunal found that while the Builder failed to substantially perform the contract, the foundation was built within the specifications of the blueprints and building permit.

Because the Appellant rejected the Builder's proposed accessibility solutions and terminated the contract, she did not have a cause of action against the Builder.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claim.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to psychological and physical rehabilitation treatment plans outside the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's self-reports to his psychological assessor were inaccurate and unsupported by corroborating clinical notes and records from his treating physicians.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, and because the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a psychological assessment and physiotherapy services outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate psychological or physical impairments warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer's examinations which were consistent with the family physician's clinical notes.

As the injuries were deemed minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the proposed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft-tissue in nature and not corroborated by legible medical records to be outside the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal assigned little weight to a psychological report that failed to consider non-accident-related stressors.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were minor, and since the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claim for a section 10 award were dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to corroborate the applicant's self-reported psychological impairments, noting she only visited a physician once post-accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the claims for treatment plans outside the MIG limit.

The respondent's request for costs due to late submissions was also dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued his injuries were severe and included chronic pain, a knee injury, and a fractured finger.

The Tribunal found that the knee and finger injuries were unrelated to the accident and that the applicant had recovered from his accident-related sprains and strains within four months.

As the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, the proposed physiotherapy treatment plans outside the MIG limit were denied, along with claims for an award and interest.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she had managed to obtain rides to work and borrow a vehicle for day-to-day essentials.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Tribunal found that the corporate appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible and failed to comply with requests for information, justifying the refusal of its dealer registration.

However, the Tribunal found that the individual appellant's financial position, past conduct, and breach of conditions did not disentitle him to registration as a salesperson.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to refuse the dealer registration but to approve the salesperson registration subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a reported alcohol-provoked seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant did suffer an alcohol-provoked seizure, the condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, given his subsequent abstinence from alcohol and the resolution of the provoking factor.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims for 14 alleged defects in her new home, including issues with an elevator, tilt and turn windows, flat roof drainage, and exterior cladding.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the elevator and roof drainage systems functioned as intended and complied with the Ontario Building Code, noting that the reported issues were caused by a lack of regular homeowner maintenance.

The Tribunal also found no breach of warranty regarding the windows' design and no compensable damages from previously repaired exterior cladding.

The appeal was dismissed and the claims were denied.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, initially placing the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) before removing him upon discovering a toe fracture.

The Tribunal found that the disputed treatment plans, including laser therapy, a bone growth stimulator, further chiropractic and physiotherapy services, and a chronic pain management program, were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, finding that the toe fracture was uncomplicated and that the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain syndrome under the AMA Guides.

The application was dismissed, and claims for an award and interest were denied.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she could rely on friends for deliveries and rides to medical appointments.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant sought post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the 'complete inability' test for post-104-week IRBs, relying on insurer's examinations and surveillance evidence showing her performing work activities.

The Tribunal denied claims for chiropractic services, massage therapy, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's claims for a psychological assessment and a driving reintegration assessment to address her vehicular anxiety, along with interest on those overdue amounts.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant lent it to a friend who was driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional financial hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as he had access to rides, walking, and public transit.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after a driver was caught operating it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to transport her disabled mother to medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal concluded that alternatives to the impounded vehicle were available, such as public transit, rides from others, and rescheduling non-urgent appointments, and noted that the vehicle was uninsured for the first 26 days of the impoundment period.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found her entitled to income replacement benefits (IRBs) but quantified them at nil.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by admitting late-filed expert reports from the insurer's examination (IE) assessors regarding medical entitlement, and erred in law by finding she was self-employed and excluding her prior year's employment income.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration in part, varying the decision to vacate all findings related to medical entitlement due to the respondent's breach of expert disclosure rules.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request regarding the quantum of IRBs, finding no error in the determination that the applicant was self-employed and that her IRBs were correctly calculated at nil under the Schedule.