D. Gregory Flude

The respondent insurer brought a preliminary issue motion to determine whether the applicant's slip and fall incident qualified as an accident under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant had brushed snow off her car, left the engine running, and was walking to dispose of garbage when she slipped and broke her wrist.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that the use or operation of the vehicle did not directly cause the impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the incident was not an accident and dismissed the application for statutory accident benefits.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar to revoke their registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, binding the appellant to conditions including a four-year prohibition on applying to be a motor vehicle dealer or holding a management position, and requiring employment only by an approved sponsoring dealer subject to semi-annual audits.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship for his daughter and wife.

The vehicle was impounded after the daughter allowed a driver with a suspended licence to drive it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that both the daughter and wife had alternative modes of transportation available, albeit inconvenient, and therefore failed to meet the test for exceptional hardship.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove a condition on its liquor licence that was originally imposed by the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission in 2010.

The Tribunal found that it has jurisdiction under section 11(4) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019 to remove conditions imposed by its predecessor adjudicative body.

As the original objectors had not received notice of the application, the Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to issue a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Remove the Condition, allowing the applicant to appeal and ensuring all interested parties could participate in a full hearing.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment designation and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion arguing the catastrophic impairment claim was barred by abuse of process, as a previous Tribunal decision had rejected the applicant's evidence as unreliable.

The respondent also argued the attendant care claim was barred because the applicant failed to attend an insurer's examination by insisting her treating occupational therapist be present.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's motion, barring the catastrophic impairment claim to prevent relitigation of factual findings, and staying the attendant care claim until the applicant attends the examination without preconditions.

Dr. Heap, an added party, brought a motion to reconsider a previous decision denying party status to Western University and Muhammed Hamou, and to extend deadlines for witness statements.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion for reconsideration because the previous decision was not a final order and Dr. Heap failed to follow procedural steps.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request for an extension of time, noting that Dr. Heap had already been granted an extension and further delay would prejudice the appellant, 7-Eleven Canada Inc.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying him a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to apply the Heath factors to assess his inability to carry on a normal life.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the Tribunal made no material error of law or fact, as the evidence supported the conclusion that the applicant had largely returned to his pre-accident activities and function, rendering the Heath analysis unnecessary.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his licence as a Thoroughbred Horseperson-Groom.

The parties requested an order disposing of the appeal without a hearing on agreed terms.

The Tribunal issued a consent order imposing a condition on the appellant's licence requiring him to advise the Deputy Registrar of any charges, convictions, or findings of guilt.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their motor vehicle dealer registrations.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, disposing of the matter without a hearing and binding the appellants to the terms of the settlement, which included the revocation of their registrations on a specified date and strict conditions on their operations in the interim.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Director's Order for Immediate Compliance under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

Both parties consented to disposing of the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the appellant to immediately comply with the Act, cease unfair practices such as making false representations about equipment requirements, refund a consumer $3,387.25, cancel specific consumer agreements, and discharge related Notices of Security Interest.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a consent order to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

The Tribunal approved the consent order, directing that the appellant be registered subject to specific conditions, including restrictions on managerial roles and a requirement to complete a certification course.

The appellant truck driving school appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Renew Registration and a Notice of Immediate Suspension issued by the Superintendent of Private Career Colleges.

The Superintendent alleged the appellant engaged in misleading advertising, operated an unapproved campus in Cornwall, failed to maintain required student logs, conducted unapproved in-person training during the COVID-19 pandemic, and obstructed an investigation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Superintendent proved the contraventions on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the appellant's registration, noting a history of non-compliance and deliberate attempts to cover up the unapproved operations.

The University of Western Ontario and Muhammed K. Hamou brought motions to be added as parties to a liquor licence application proceeding involving 7-Eleven Canada Inc. The moving parties had failed to object to the application within the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding that the moving parties failed to establish a significant interest, their concerns substantially overlapped with those of existing added parties, and they failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their delay of over a year.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding she did not suffer a catastrophic impairment following an ATV accident.

She argued the adjudicator misapplied the 'but for' test, misinterpreted her mental health history, and failed to consider the accident's effect on her employment.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the applicant was improperly attempting to reweigh the evidence.

The original adjudicator properly applied the causation test, reasonably relied on the respondent's psychiatric expert regarding the applicant's pre-existing autism spectrum disorder, and was entitled to place less weight on the applicant's psychological and occupational therapy evidence because those experts lacked critical pre-accident records.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse a Registration issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a resolution and requested the Licence Appeal Tribunal to dispose of the appeal without a hearing on consent.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to register the appellant as a motor vehicle salesperson subject to conditions, including restricting the registration to the wholesale class and prohibiting the appellant from remaining alone with female persons while trading in motor vehicles.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying entitlement to two chiropractic treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and sought to introduce new medical evidence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the proposed new evidence was either reasonably available prior to the hearing or would not have impacted the outcome.

The Vice-Chair further held that the Tribunal's weighing of the medical evidence, including assigning less weight to expert reports that lacked full medical history or relied on conjecture, was open to it on the evidence and did not constitute an error of fact.

The applicant was struck by a transit bus while crossing an intersection and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold, preferring the respondent's medical experts who concluded her psychological challenges stemmed from pre-existing learning difficulties rather than the accident, and that she did not suffer from post-concussion syndrome.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $2,400 for a chronic pain assessment plan, finding the assessment was reasonable at the time it was proposed, and awarded interest because the respondent failed to provide proper medical reasons for its denial.

The insured sought income replacement benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer brought a preliminary issue motion arguing the insured made material misrepresentations regarding his primary residence when applying for the policy and regarding the circumstances of the accident.

The Tribunal found that the insured misrepresented his primary residence to obtain a lower premium and misrepresented the facts of the alleged accident.

As a result, the insured failed to meet his burden of proving he was involved in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim and ordered the insured to repay $10,857.14 in income replacement benefits previously paid by the insurer.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied his claim for income replacement benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The original decision found that the applicant's impairments were pre-existing and not caused by the accident.

On reconsideration, the applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness and made errors of law or fact, specifically regarding the weighing of expert evidence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal's treatment of the evidence, including its conclusion on causation, was open to it on the record and did not constitute a jurisdictional or procedural error.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse a Registration issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a resolution and requested a consent order disposing of the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to register the appellant as a motor vehicle salesperson subject to specific terms and conditions, including compliance with a consumer proposal and restrictions on his employment and business interests.