Cezary Paluch

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that capped the cost of home accessibility and alternative housing assessments at $2,000 under s. 25(5)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the cap should only apply to medical assessments of a claimant's health status, not housing evaluations.

The adjudicator denied the request, finding no error of law or fact in the original decision's application of the modern approach to statutory interpretation.

The plain meaning of 'any one assessment or examination' includes the housing assessments, which inherently involved an appraisal of the applicant's health status.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant's appeal was statute-barred because it was not commenced within the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's Explanation of Benefits did not comply with the notice requirements of section 37(4) of the Schedule, as it failed to provide adequate medical and other reasons for the denial in plain language.

Consequently, the limitation period was never triggered, and the applicant's claim was not out of time.

The applicant was rear-ended in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and found that the accident caused the applicant's psychological impairments.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the respondent's psychiatrist, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a marked impairment (Class 4) in three of four functional domains (Activities of Daily Living, Concentration, Persistence and Pace, and Adaptation).

The applicant was deemed catastrophically impaired.

However, claims for specific medical and rehabilitation benefits were dismissed as the applicant failed to provide the disputed treatment plans or prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) more than 104 weeks after a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to work due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The respondent insurer terminated IRBs based on insurer examinations indicating the applicant could perform alternative employment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's condition had improved, she had reached maximum medical improvement, and she possessed transferable skills suitable for roles such as a beauty salon attendant or cashier.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to meet the post-104 week disability test.

Additionally, the applicant's claim for the cost of a chronic pain assessment was denied because it was incurred before submitting a treatment plan, contrary to section 38(2) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a catastrophic impairment determination approximately 15 months post-accident.

Because the application was submitted prior to the two-year mark, the applicant was required to satisfy the additional criteria under s. 3.1(2)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's medical experts provided projections of future impairment rather than a present determination that the applicant had a 55% whole person impairment.

Furthermore, the evidence did not establish that the applicant's condition was unlikely to improve to less than 55% impairment.

The application was dismissed as premature.

The applicant, who was self-represented, requested an adjournment at the start of a catastrophic impairment hearing after his former counsel disengaged shortly before the hearing.

During the preliminary matters, the applicant suffered a medical emergency (seizure) in the hearing room.

The adjudicator granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant needed time to retain new counsel and that proceeding would not permit an adequate hearing and could negatively impact the applicant's health.

The Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards proposed to revoke the appellant's Motor Vehicle Inspection Station licence and mechanic registration.

The appellant appealed the proposal.

The tribunal found that the appellant had issued numerous safety standards certificates without inspecting the vehicles, issued certificates for vehicles that did not meet minimum safety standards, failed to complete required inspection reports, and failed to maintain proper inspection equipment.

The tribunal concluded that the Director established the grounds for revocation and directed the Director to carry out the proposal.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it caused exceptional hardship because she needed it for work and to transport her family.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to a second vehicle registered in her name, which she was already using.

As an alternative vehicle was available, the legal test for exceptional hardship under the Highway Traffic Act was not met.

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

The suspension followed a hospital admission for alcohol abuse and a Medical Condition Report diagnosing alcohol dependence and a mental illness.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from alcohol dependence exacerbated by a depressive disorder, and that this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a non-commercial licence following a reported seizure.

The Tribunal found that the appellant suffered a seizure and had a history of seizures into adulthood.

Given the risk of recurrence and the lack of warning signs, the Tribunal concluded that the medical condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

The Minister's decision was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a medical report indicating he suffered a seizure and lost consciousness.

The appellant argued the loss of consciousness was caused by a chiropractor hitting a nerve.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal rejected this explanation, finding based on medical evidence that the appellant suffered either a seizure or cardiogenic syncope.

Given the lack of follow-up treatment or a clear diagnosis, the Tribunal concluded the condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the suspension.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain that caused significant functional impairment, thereby removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for disputed occupational therapy and chiropractic treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for ongoing income replacement benefits, concluding she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under the Highway Traffic Act following a medical report indicating alcohol dependence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant suffers from alcohol dependence, the Registrar failed to establish that the condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appellant had completed a detox program, was compliant with medication, and demonstrated insight into his condition.

The Tribunal set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant's vehicle was erroneously impounded after police incorrectly determined his licence was suspended.

The impoundment was subsequently cancelled and the appellant was not responsible for impoundment fees.

The appellant filed an appeal but failed to attend a scheduled case conference and a subsequent hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had abandoned the proceeding by failing to attend the hearing after receiving proper notice.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its registration as a travel agency under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

Prior to the resumption of the hearing, the parties resolved the issues in dispute and filed Minutes of Settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order lifting the temporary suspension and allowing the appellant to continue its registration, subject to strict conditions regarding financial reporting, working capital maintenance, and trust account reconciliations.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for work and to transport her children.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had borrowed a friend's vehicle and therefore had an alternative available.

As an alternative existed, the legal test for exceptional hardship under the Highway Traffic Act was not met.

Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion to add the builder, Remington Oakville Preserve Inc., as a party to the homeowner's appeal of a denied warranty claim.

The homeowner brought a cross-motion to exclude the builder's late-filed submissions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the homeowner's motion, finding no prejudice from the late filing.

The Tribunal granted Tarion's motion to add the builder as a party, finding that the builder had a significant interest in the proceeding because the alleged framing defects could expose the builder to significant financial loss and the issues overlapped with a prior proceeding involving the same parties.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 proposed to revoke the registrations of the appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its salesperson.

Following a case conference, the parties reached a settlement and applied for a consent order without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, allowing the appellants to maintain their registrations subject to strict conditions, including providing a $30,000 letter of credit, employing a bookkeeper, and satisfying outstanding financial obligations.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for non-earner benefits and medical benefits.

The respondent initially denied or ignored the claims but paid them after the applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties resolved the substantive benefits at a case conference, leaving only the issue of a special award for unreasonable delay.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 because no benefits were owing "at the time of the award." The Tribunal rejected this literal interpretation, finding it retained jurisdiction and that allowing an insurer to avoid a special award by paying late would defeat the consumer protection purpose of the legislation.

The Tribunal found the respondent unreasonably delayed payments, ignored medical evidence, and failed to respond to correspondence.

Applying the Persofsky factors, the Tribunal awarded a special award of $5,896.83, representing 40% of the delayed benefits.

The respondent insurer brought a motion to prohibit the applicant from proceeding with her application for non-earner benefits, arguing she failed to attend scheduled insurer's examinations under s. 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant argued the examinations were not reasonably necessary as she had already attended three in-person assessments.

The Tribunal applied the six-factor test for reasonableness and found the requested examinations were duplicative, not based on new information, and overly intrusive given the applicant's mental state.

The motion was dismissed, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to a hearing.