Dagmar Boettcher

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their Year-End Form warranty claims regarding sod levelling, roof shingles, and interior dapping.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the builder breached the statutory warranty under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal noted the sod issues were aesthetic, the roof showed no significant defects, and the dapping gaps were likely caused by low humidity in the home.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was ordered to deny the claims.

The appellants brought a motion to extend the document exchange deadline in their appeal of a Tarion Warranty Corporation decision.

The respondent consented to the extension but requested that documents unrelated to new expert reports be exchanged immediately and that the hearing be adjourned for 60 days.

The Tribunal granted the extension for all documents to be exchanged on the same date, finding that the issues were interrelated and piecemeal disclosure was inappropriate.

The Tribunal also granted a 30-day adjournment of the hearing to allow the respondent sufficient time to review the new expert reports.

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 appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for $7,500 in delayed occupancy compensation regarding a new condominium unit.

The builder had delayed occupancy several times, citing unavoidable delays.

The appellant subsequently signed an Amendment and a Full and Final Release allowing them to lease the unit prior to closing, which explicitly waived their entitlement to delayed occupancy compensation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the builder met its obligations regarding unavoidable delays and that the executed Release operated as a valid waiver of the compensation claim.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, noting that the family doctor's clinical notes were largely illegible and did not reference psychological complaints.

The adjudicator also rejected the applicant's psychological assessment report because it was conducted virtually and the assessor relied on irrelevant medical records.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

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

The vehicle was impounded because the appellant was driving without a required ignition interlock device.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as he had access to food delivery, taxis, and occasional rides to work.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions (osteoarthritis, diabetes, hypertension, pericardial effusion, and age) and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that any pre-existing condition would prevent maximal recovery if kept within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support a diagnosis of chronic pain with functional impairment.

The applicant's alternative argument that the respondent's denial notices failed to comply with s. 38(8) of the Schedule was also dismissed.

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 Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a concussion, warranting removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for chiropractic services, a psychological assessment, and a concussion assessment, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it was taken without his permission.

Prior to the hearing, the Registrar released the vehicle to the appellant.

The appellant subsequently confirmed the return of the vehicle and withdrew his appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and ordered the file closed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the burden of proving her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, which included comprehensive reviews of medical records and in-person assessments, over the applicant's evidence, which was found to be contradictory and lacking in documentary review.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, her claims for various treatment plans, an award for unreasonable delay, and interest were dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, or psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Relying on the respondent's section 44 assessment, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the claims for chiropractic services, an award, and interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied the claims, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue sprains and strains.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment, noting his continued ability to work, lack of reliance on prescription medication, and inconsistent medical records.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG, dismissing his claims for a psychological assessment, physiotherapy services, and interest.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment 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 that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she had access to rides from friends and family, and could potentially use her father's vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report indicating the appellant suffered from alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant does suffer from mild alcohol use disorder, the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's lifestyle changes, abstinence from alcohol, and support from his family doctor.

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

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence under s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the employee's licence status prior to the impoundment, as the office manager had authorized the vehicle's use without checking the licence or confirming its validity with the insurer.

The applicant sought statutory 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 for removal from the MIG based on diagnoses including radiculopathy and chronic headaches, relying on letters from his chiropractor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of functional impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Preferring the respondent's physiatry assessments, which concluded the injuries were minor sprains and strains, the Tribunal held the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plan for chiropractic services and the claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant demonstrated a psychological impairment, specifically a provisional diagnosis of PTSD, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's denial of a physiotherapy treatment plan was non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, making the plan payable.

Furthermore, the Tribunal approved treatment plans for a chronic pain assessment and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's ongoing symptoms and functional limitations.

The applicant was awarded the disputed treatment plans and interest on incurred amounts.

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 argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to support any of the grounds for removal.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was limited to the remaining $24.49 balance of the MIG limit.