Bruce Stanton

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits.

The respondent determined the injuries were minor and subject to the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing his pre-existing chronic back pain was aggravated by the accident and he developed chronic pain syndrome, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing condition impeded his recovery within the MIG, nor did he establish he suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment as a result of the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissing the claims for a $2,400 physiotherapy treatment plan and interest.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a non-commercial class due to the implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

The Tribunal found that under the updated Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators' National Safety Code Standards, commercial drivers with an ICD are disqualified from commercial driving.

Relying on the medical advisory committee's report, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's medical condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

The licence downgrade was confirmed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his injuries fell outside the MIG, as there was insufficient evidence of chronic pain with functional impairment, psychological injury, or exacerbation of pre-existing conditions.

Because the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle after it was driven by a friend with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as he took no reasonable steps to verify the driver's licence status beyond a casual glance a year prior.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to alternative transportation, including a work truck and taxi services.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a Year-end statutory warranty claim regarding a cold walk-in closet and master bedroom washroom.

The appellant argued that the temperature differential between the master bedroom and the walk-in closet was unacceptable.

Following initial investigations, the builder added a heating register, spray foam insulation, and a vapour barrier to the garage ceiling below the closet.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that the temperature imbalance constituted a breach of warranty, as the improved heating and insulation system likely met the Ontario Building Code requirement of maintaining an indoor temperature of 22°C. The appeal was dismissed and the claim denied.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an employee with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant merely assumed the driver's licence was valid without taking reasonable steps to verify it.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because he had access to an alternative vehicle.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her compensation under a new home financial loss warranty.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal made an error of fact by failing to consider elevation drawings in the blueprints that showed her expectation of a grade-level main entrance.

The adjudicator found that the previous decision relied only on sectional drawings for backfill height and ignored the elevation drawings, constituting an error of fact that would likely have changed the outcome.

The reconsideration request was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The appellant appealed Tarion's decision to deny her Major Structural Defect (MSD) claim because it was filed outside the seven-year warranty period.

The appellant argued that Tarion should have exercised its discretion under s. 5.10 of the Regulation to extend the timeline due to extraordinary circumstances, including inconsistent information from Tarion, her father's palliative care, and her own severe COVID-19 illness.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that Tarion had the discretion to extend the timeline and that the appellant's circumstances warranted such an extension.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to accept the MSD claim and process it in accordance with the Act.

The appellant homeowner appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for a thumping noise in the plumbing system caused by the washing machine.

The appellant argued the water hammer violated the Ontario Building Code and constituted a breach of the builder's warranty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the occasional thumping noise was a normal condition resulting from the abrupt closing of appliance valves, consistent with the Construction Performance Guidelines.

The Tribunal concluded there was no breach of warranty and ordered Tarion to deny the claim.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for income replacement benefits and a treatment plan for an electrophysiological assessment.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal made errors of law and fact and committed a material breach of procedural fairness by improperly weighing the evidence, including OCF-3 disability certificates and medical records.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the original decision and disagreeing with the weight assigned to the evidence, which does not meet the high threshold for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's denial of two physiotherapy treatment plans and a portion of a psychological treatment plan.

The Tribunal found the physiotherapy plans were not reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the insurer's examination assessors over the applicant's medical reports, which contained inconsistencies regarding pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal approved the disputed psychological treatment for observation and monitoring, finding it integral to the approved psychotherapy.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed, while interest was granted on the overdue psychological benefits.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding a warranted air leak defect in her new home.

Tarion had issued a supplementary decision offering $15,000 to repair the defect, which the appellant rejected, seeking $60,000 based on contractor estimates and secondary costs.

The Tribunal found that secondary damages are excluded under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and that the appellant's estimates lacked probative value as they did not specify the required scope of work.

Relying on the respondent's witness who directly observed the defect area, the Tribunal concluded that $15,000 was more than sufficient to address the air leak.

The appeal for additional funds was dismissed, and Tarion was ordered to pay the $15,000 previously offered.

The appellants filed an appeal of a Notice of Proposal to revoke their motor vehicle dealer registrations four days after the expiry of the 15-day statutory appeal period.

They brought a motion to extend the time limit under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999.

Applying the Frey factors, the Tribunal found that while the appellants did not demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the period, the four-day delay was insignificant, the prejudice to the respondent was not significant, and the appeal had merit.

The Tribunal concluded that the justice of the case favoured granting the extension.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed under the Highway Traffic Act after he failed to provide a breath sample following a motor vehicle collision.

The appellant argued he was unable to comply with the demand due to confusion and disorientation from a concussion sustained in the collision.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the appellant suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, the medical evidence did not establish a causal link between his condition and his inability to provide a breath sample at the roadside.

The suspension was confirmed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and physiotherapy treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's soft tissue injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove his pre-existing heart condition precluded his recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding the applicant did not demonstrate a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as an Uber driver, noting post-accident stress tests showed physical capabilities similar to his pre-accident state.

All claims were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for three treatment plans for chiropractic services, which the respondent insurer denied.

The respondent also sought to exclude the clinical notes and records of the applicant's family physician due to alleged late disclosure, which the Tribunal denied as the respondent had prior notice of them.

The Tribunal found the treatment plans reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's assessors and treating physician over the respondent's insurer examinations.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the treatment plans and interest on overdue payments.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that he suffered from chronic pain and should be removed from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his pain met the threshold for chronic pain or that it resulted in a functional impairment.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The claims for chiropractic treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle for driving while suspended.

He argued he exercised due diligence in determining his licence status and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to establish due diligence, as he took no reasonable steps to verify his licence status after a recent Criminal Code conviction for dangerous operation.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant and his mother had access to public transit as an alternative to the impounded vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for income replacement benefits and treatment plans.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by applying incorrect legal tests and requiring corroboration of his OCF-3 medical certificate.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to identify any breach of procedural fairness and that the original decision correctly applied the eligibility tests set out in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), physiotherapy, psychological treatments, and medication expenses.

The Tribunal found the applicant was disentitled to pre-104 week IRBs due to non-compliance with section 33 of the Schedule for failing to provide self-employment financial records, and did not meet the test for post-104 week IRBs.

The Tribunal approved the physiotherapy treatment plans as reasonable and necessary, but dismissed the claims for the unapproved portions of the psychological treatment plans and the medication expenses.

The claim for an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's denials were reasonably informed by independent medical examinations.