Caley Howard

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

The applicant argued he suffered from chronic pain and a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG, and that the insurer's denial of a physiotherapy treatment plan was non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The adjudicator found the applicant failed to meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain and lacked evidence of a psychological condition.

The adjudicator also found the insurer's denial letter compliant.

The insurer's claim for repayment of an alleged Income Replacement Benefit overpayment was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

All claims were dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological condition as a result of the accident, warranting removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant was denied funding for five chiropractic treatment plans and a psychological assessment due to insufficient evidence.

However, the Tribunal approved a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment, finding reasonable grounds based on family doctor records.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue benefits but denied a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse its registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant's officers failed to disclose required information, made false statements on applications, lacked financial responsibility after a $30 million loan was called in, and traded vehicles while unregistered.

The Tribunal found that while the officers did fail to disclose certain information and made false statements regarding the loan, the Registrar did not prove the appellant lacked financial responsibility or traded vehicles illegally in Ontario.

The Tribunal concluded that outright refusal was not required to protect the public interest and ordered the Registrar to approve the registration subject to strict conditions.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar alleged the licence was obtained through a fraudulent bribery scheme involving third-party examiners, relying on letters from an ongoing OPP investigation.

The Tribunal admitted the OPP letters into evidence but ordered them sealed from the public record to protect the investigation.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the appellant participated in the scheme, as the OPP letters contained insufficient details and speculative conclusions.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

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 that she failed to properly elect an income replacement benefit (IRB) before commencing the application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, as she failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to an IRB because she failed to submit an OCF-10 election form prior to filing the application, a defect that could not be cured retroactively.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for three items in her new home: an allegedly excessive porch slope, an off-level porch railing, and a chimney bump-out installed in error.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the porch slope was not excessive and complied with the Ontario Building Code requirement to shed water.

The off-level railing was a result of the necessary porch slope and not a defect.

Finally, while the chimney bump-out was installed by mistake, it did not contain any defects in workmanship or material.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and a determination that her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to determine the MIG issue as a standalone dispute without a related claim for medical or rehabilitation benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment within 104 weeks of the accident, noting she had stopped working for unrelated reasons prior to the accident and did not seek medical treatment for accident-related injuries until over four years later.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit (NEB), chiropractic services, an occupational therapy assessment, and a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's accident-related chronic pain and exacerbation of pre-existing Post Polio Syndrome continuously prevented him from engaging in substantially all of his pre-accident activities, entitling him to an NEB for 104 weeks.

The Tribunal also approved the treatment plans for chiropractic services and an occupational therapy assessment, preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts who considered the functional limitations caused by his pain.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's reliance on its independent medical examinations was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant claimed she suffered from chronic pain and a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG, and sought a non-earner benefit (NEB) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony vague and unsupported by the clinical notes and records of her family doctor.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove she suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment caused by the accident, and therefore remained subject to the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, denying the NEB claim.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a 2009 motor vehicle accident, sought various medical, rehabilitation, and visitor expenses from the respondent insurer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claims for prescription expenses, advanced service dog training, an office chair, air brush supplies, a service dog licence, and a replacement iPhone, finding the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal granted the claims for sibling visitor expenses, finding them reasonable and necessary to prevent the applicant's isolation due to his impairments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB), physiotherapy, and various assessments.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to an IRB for the period between her early retirement and her planned retirement date, as accident-related pain substantially prevented her from performing the essential tasks of her employment.

The Tribunal also approved the treatment plans for physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The neurological assessment was approved because the insurer's denial failed to comply with the medical reasons requirement under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a treatment plan.

The Tribunal found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 due to marked impairments in social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation resulting from accident-related psychological disorders.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's claim for IRBs during the first 104 weeks post-accident, finding she did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

However, the Tribunal granted IRBs from September 1, 2024 onward, finding her condition had deteriorated such that she suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited.

The claim for a second catastrophic assessment treatment plan was denied.

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

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no clinically significant psychological condition, over the applicant's expert, whose diagnoses were not supported by objective psychometric testing.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG, dismissing the claims for treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay.

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

The refusal was based on the appellant's affiliation with Legacy Towing, a company whose CVOR certificate had been cancelled.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's sole corporate officer was also a corporate officer of Legacy Towing, establishing a relationship under s. 17(4)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's director was complicit in allowing individuals associated with cancelled CVORs to continue operating through Legacy Towing.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's refusal to issue the CVOR certificate, finding that alternate measures or conditions were not appropriate given the director's conduct and inconsistencies in his evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle incident.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act.

As the applicant bore the burden of proving the incident met the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Schedule and presented no evidence, the Tribunal found the burden was not met and dismissed the application.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $2,845.40 paid to the respondent insured in error for occupational therapy services.

The insurer issued a cheque to the respondent instead of the service provider, which the respondent cashed.

The Tribunal found that the insurer proved the payment was made in error and that it provided proper notice within the 12-month statutory timeframe under s. 52 of the Schedule.

The respondent was ordered to repay the amount, but no interest was awarded as it was not requested in the notice or case conference.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and funding for various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefit because he failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Tribunal approved treatment plans for occupational therapy services, an occupational therapy assessment, and psychological assessments, finding them reasonable and necessary due to the applicant's accident-related psychological impairments.

A claim for physiotherapy services was denied as the applicant had reached maximum therapeutic benefit.

The Tribunal also awarded interest on the overdue payments but declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664.

The appellant filed a motion seeking an extension of time to appeal a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

The appeal was filed 92 days after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found no reasonable grounds for an extension.

Notably, the appellant corporation had been dissolved under the Canada Business Corporations Act prior to filing the appeal, meaning it ceased to exist as a legal person and had no right to appeal.

The motion and the appeal were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to issue a tow operator's certificate under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act.

The respondent refused the certificate on the basis that a related entity had a poor safety record and failed to provide towing services competently and safely.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was controlled by the same individuals as the related entity, which had numerous convictions and safety defects.

The Tribunal confirmed the respondent's decision to refuse the certificate, finding that the related entity did not meet the safety requirements and the appellant was incorporated to circumvent the prior refusal.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The Registrar received a report from the appellant's treating endocrinologist indicating she had experienced episodes of severe hypoglycemia.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from severe hypoglycemia and that, despite her recent use of a continuous glucose monitor, there was insufficient medical evidence to prove her glycemic control had been re-established.

The Tribunal confirmed the licence suspension.