Caley Howard

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including funding for a standby generator, massage therapy, and other goods and services.

The Tribunal found the standby generator was reasonable and necessary to ensure the applicant's safety during power outages due to her severe mobility impairments.

The Tribunal also approved the massage therapy for pain management.

The claim for other goods and services and a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 were dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) as a result of a motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to attendant care benefits and a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the CAT threshold under Criterion 8, as she only demonstrated moderate, rather than marked, impairments in the spheres of functioning.

The claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed because the expenses were not incurred.

However, the Tribunal granted a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding that the respondent unreasonably delayed and withheld payment of income replacement benefits and treatment plans.

The respondent was ordered to pay an award equal to 25% of the delayed benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition caused by the accident.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical examination reports, which were based on physical and psychological assessments, over the applicant's evidence.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit, and her claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services and an in-home attendant care assessment.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The applicant argued that the insurer's denial letters were statutorily deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule for failing to provide sufficient medical reasons.

The Tribunal found that the denial letters met the requirements of s. 38(8) as they provided specific details about the applicant's condition that formed the basis of the decisions, allowing the applicant to make an informed decision to dispute them.

As the applicant provided no medical evidence to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, the claims were dismissed.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment (CAT) based on mental and behavioural disorders, and entitlement to a post-104-week income replacement benefit (IRB).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant sustained psychological impairments from the accident, she did not meet the Criterion 8 threshold for CAT, as she demonstrated only moderate impairments across the four spheres of functioning.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, preferring the respondent's multi-disciplinary assessment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his jointly-owned motor vehicle, which was impounded after he was caught driving with a suspended licence.

He argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the exceptional hardship ground under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act was unavailable because a vehicle owned by the appellant's co-owner (his wife) had previously been impounded under s. 55.1.

The Tribunal interpreted 'same owner' in s. 50.2(4) to apply to both co-owners to prevent circumvention of the Act's public safety purposes.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his e-bike, which was impounded for driving with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction, finding the modified e-bike met the definition of a motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because he had not considered reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as asking his girlfriend for assistance with errands.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for numerous alleged construction defects in their new home.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to prove that the vast majority of the disputed items, including framing, floor slabs, and paint quality, were breaches of warranty or violations of the Ontario Building Code.

While two minor items were found to be breaches, the appellants failed to prove any resulting damages.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the appellants were disentitled to compensation for several otherwise warranted items because they unreasonably denied the builder access to the home during the extended repair period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for warranty coverage under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants argued that the builder failed to install flush thresholds in four exterior doorways as specified in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale to accommodate their daughter's mobility devices.

The adjudicator found that the 'wheelchair accessible' thresholds installed by the builder, which had a half-inch rise, did not meet the contractual requirement for flush thresholds and constituted a breach of warranty.

The adjudicator ordered Tarion to pay the appellants $19,578.48 from the guarantee fund to cover the cost of custom replacement doors and adjusting the deck level.

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

The respondent denied the claims, asserting the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the respondent's denial notices did not comply with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

While the respondent's initial denial letter was non-compliant with s. 38(8), a subsequent letter relying on an insurer's examination report cured the deficiency.

Because the applicant did not prove the disputed treatment plans were incurred during the period of non-compliance, they were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

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).

The applicant claimed she suffered from psychological impairments and chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not prove she suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain caused by the accident, preferring the respondent's expert evidence and the clinical notes of the applicant's family doctor.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries remained within the MIG, dismissing the claims for the psychological assessment, an award, and interest.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for their home under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants argued that their extensive renovation of a historic home, which retained the original foundation and exterior masonry walls, constituted a new home.

The Tribunal found that the contractor did not meet the definition of a 'vendor' or 'builder' because they did not supply all the materials or perform all the work necessary to construct the completed home, given the substantial retained elements.

The appeal was dismissed, and the home was deemed ineligible for warranty coverage.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant engaged in academic misconduct by using a third-party exam-taker and screen mirroring technology during five online exams.

The Tribunal found that the circumstantial evidence, including unusually short completion times, high marks, and the use of an IP address associated with a known cheating ring, established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant engaged in academic misconduct.

Consequently, the appellant failed to meet the educational requirements for registration, and the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he sustained injuries falling outside the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert medical evidence, which concluded the applicant suffered only minor injuries such as whiplash and a sprained shoulder.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and his claims for additional treatment plans, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

In a previous Tribunal decision, the applicant was barred from proceeding with his claim because he failed to attend a properly scheduled insurer's examination under s. 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant subsequently filed a new application raising the same substantive issues.

The Tribunal found that the doctrine of res judicata applied, as the previous decision was final and disposed of the substantive issue.

The Tribunal declined to waive res judicata, finding no fresh evidence or fairness reasons to do so, and dismissed the application.

The appellant, a towing company, appealed a 30-day suspension of its Tow Operator and Vehicle Storage Certificates issued by the Director of Towing and Vehicle Storage Standards.

The suspension was based on numerous alleged violations of the Towing and Vehicle Storage Safety and Enforcement Act and the Highway Traffic Act by the appellant's drivers, including driving without a valid tow driver certificate, presenting falsified documents, speeding, and driving with unsecured loads.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Director had proven several of the grounds for suspension.

However, considering the appellant's significant efforts to improve its safety record, implement standard operating procedures, and discipline non-compliant drivers, the Tribunal concluded that a 30-day suspension was not warranted.

Instead, the Tribunal ordered the suspension cancelled and directed that the conditions previously attached to the appellant's certificates remain in place indefinitely.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders following a motor vehicle accident, as well as entitlement to various treatment plans and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, as she failed to prove a marked impairment in three of the four areas of function under Criterion 8 of the AMA Guides.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychiatrist, noting the applicant's significant pre-existing physical and mental impairments.

Several treatment plans for psychological and chronic pain assessments were approved as reasonable and necessary, subject to the non-catastrophic limit, while others were denied.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an Immediate Suspension Order (ISO) of its liquor licence issued by the Registrar under the Liquor Licence Control Act, 2019.

The ISO was issued following an RCMP investigation that revealed drug trafficking activities occurring within the appellant's strip club.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's sole owner either knew or ought to have known about the drug-related activities and failed to exercise sufficient control over the premises.

The Tribunal upheld the ISO, concluding that the suspension of the liquor licence was necessary in the public interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for a hospital bed rental, a catastrophic impairment assessment, physiotherapy, and psychological services.

The Tribunal found the hospital bed rental payable because the insurer's denial failed to comply with the medical reasons requirement under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The physiotherapy plan was deemed reasonable and necessary based on the treating physician's recommendation.

However, the catastrophic assessment and the disputed portion of the psychological services plan were denied.

Claims for a special award were dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to refuse to issue a Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The Registrar refused the application on the basis that the appellant was related to a corporation whose CVOR certificate had previously been cancelled.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's director was directly involved in attempts to circumvent sanctions applied to other commercial vehicle operators with poor safety records.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's refusal, finding that granting a CVOR certificate, even with conditions, would not adequately protect the public.