D. Gregory Flude

The applicant was struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian and sought statutory accident benefits for physical and psychological injuries.

The insurer limited her medical and rehabilitation benefits to $3,500, arguing her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant claimed she suffered from chronic pain, a nerve impingement, and a psychological condition (PTSD) that removed her from the minor injury limit.

The Tribunal found that her physical soft tissue injuries had resolved and rejected her psychological expert's report because the expert had never actually met her.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and dismissed her claims for further medical benefits and assessments.

The applicant sought an extension of the two-year limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to dispute the termination of his income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test from Manuel v. Registrar, considering the applicant's intention to appeal, the length of the delay, prejudice to the insurer, and the merits of the appeal.

Finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a clear intention to appeal within the limitation period and provided little evidence on the merits, the Tribunal declined to extend the time.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefit on May 18, 2016, because the applicant failed to submit a Disability Certificate (OCF-3).

The applicant applied to the Tribunal on August 10, 2018.

The insurer argued the application was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found the May 18, 2016 denial letter was clear and unequivocal, triggering the limitation period.

The Tribunal held the application was filed late but allowed the parties to make written submissions on whether an extension of time should be granted under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying three chiropractic treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made a significant error of law by preferring the respondent's medical expert, who found no objective basis for chronic pain syndrome, over the applicant's expert.

The applicant also sought to introduce a 1995 academic paper as new evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the weighing of expert evidence is within the adjudicator's prerogative and did not constitute an error of law.

The Tribunal also refused to admit the academic paper, as it could have been obtained earlier and actually supported the respondent's expert's characterization of chronic pain syndrome.

The applicant, an Ontario resident, was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident in Quebec.

She elected to receive benefits under the Quebec no-fault scheme pursuant to s. 57(1)(b) of the SABS.

A dispute arose over whether the hourly rates paid to service providers should be governed by the Ontario or Quebec fee guidelines.

The applicant argued that the rates were procedural and should be governed by Ontario law, while the respondent insurer argued they were substantive and governed by Quebec law.

The Tribunal held that under s. 57(1)(b), the applicant is deemed to be a resident of Quebec for the purpose of calculating benefits, and therefore the Quebec fee guidelines apply.

The respondent insurer sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which held that the cost of a catastrophic impairment assessment is not deducted from the $50,000 monetary limit for medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer argued that the Tribunal made a significant error of law.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no significant error of law.

The Vice-Chair confirmed that a catastrophic impairment is a designation, not a benefit, and therefore an assessment for it is not 'in connection with any benefit or payment' under section 18(5) of the Schedule.

Consequently, the cost of the assessment is payable over and above the $50,000 limit.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his appeal for a non-earner benefit as being outside the two-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached natural justice, committed errors of law, and failed to consider extending the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no breach of natural justice or error of law.

Applying the four-factor test from Manuel, the Vice-Chair declined to exercise discretion to extend the limitation period, noting the applicant's failure to explain a five-month delay and lack of evidence regarding prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, housekeeping and home maintenance benefits, and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims for housekeeping benefits because the applicant had not sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as the applicant's pre-existing psychological conditions and post-accident activities demonstrated she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal granted the claim for a chronic pain program in part, finding it reasonable and necessary, but dismissed the remaining claims for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment as duplicative.

The claim for a special award under O. Reg 664 was also dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries were not predominantly minor due to chronic pain, a psychological condition, and a pre-existing condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor (sprains, strains, whiplash).

The tribunal rejected the applicant's evidence of chronic pain syndrome and found her mild psychological condition did not inhibit useful functioning.

Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery.

Consequently, the applicant was subject to the $3,500 treatment limit, and her claims for further benefits and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and received $3,700 in medical and rehabilitation benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer subsequently alleged that the applicant was not a passenger in the vehicle, that the accident was staged, and sought repayment of the benefits under s. 52 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to wilful misrepresentation.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be a credible witness, noting that her vague recollection of the accident was explained by documented cognitive dysfunction related to multiple sclerosis.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was indeed in the accident and did not make a wilful misrepresentation.

The insurer's claim for repayment was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her medical condition and need to transport her nephew.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship, as alternative transportation was available and her circumstances did not amount to more than the inconvenience typically suffered from a vehicle impoundment.

The impoundment order was confirmed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found that the applicant's dispute of the termination of his income replacement benefit was filed within the two-year limitation period.

The Vice-Chair found that the adjudicator made a significant error of law and fact by failing to apply the deemed receipt provisions for the denial letter and by ignoring the date the applicant's counsel received the insurer's claims file.

The Vice-Chair determined the actual denial date was February 15, 2015, meaning the application was filed late.

The Vice-Chair also rejected the argument that the limitation period was extended by a pending mediator's report.

However, as the applicant raised the issue of a limitation extension under section 7 of the LAT Act for the first time in responding submissions, the insurer was granted 15 days to provide written submissions on that issue.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which held that the insurer must fund a catastrophic impairment assessment in addition to the $50,000 limit for medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer argued that the Adjudicator made a significant error of law in interpreting sections 18 and 25 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no significant error of law and agreeing that catastrophic impairment assessments are not included in the $50,000 medical benefit limit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to three treatment plans for chiropractic services and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and that he had recovered through a home-based exercise program.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the chiropractic treatments were not reasonable and necessary as they provided minimal improvement compared to the home exercise program.

The Tribunal also denied the chronic pain assessment, preferring the respondent's expert evidence that the applicant lacked objective markers of chronic pain syndrome over the applicant's expert, whose opinion relied on subjective reports contradicted by contemporaneous medical records.

The appellant applied to be registered as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the registration due to the appellant's lengthy drug-related criminal record, which included convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possessing proceeds of crime.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal but conceded that his application could not succeed if his criminal convictions were upheld on appeal.

Following the Ontario Court of Appeal's dismissal of his criminal appeal, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to deny the registration.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, along with immediate suspension orders.

At the commencement of the hearing, the appellants consented to the continuation of their immediate suspensions until the conclusion of the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the continuation of the suspensions, joined the related appeal files, and adjourned the matters to an in-person case conference.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registrations as a motor vehicle salesperson and dealer.

In a previous decision, the Tribunal ordered the appellant to produce requested documents or withdraw his appeal.

The appellant failed to comply and reaffirmed his intention not to disclose the documents.

The Registrar brought a motion for a final order.

The Tribunal granted the motion and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to deny the registrations.

The appellant appealed a 7-day Suspension and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles regarding its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR).

The Registrar issued the order due to the appellant's chronically poor safety record and failure to abide by previously imposed conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that despite recent improvements and the hiring of a safety consultant, the appellant's prolonged history of poor safety performance provided reasonable grounds to believe it would not operate safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the 7-day suspension.

The appellant child care centre appealed the Director's decision to downgrade its licence to a provisional licence under the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014.

The downgrade followed the appellant's failure to comply with a Public Health work order requiring repairs to the kitchen area.

The appellant argued the Director lacked authority to issue the provisional licence and that the downgrade negatively impacted its ability to secure municipal funding for the repairs.

The Tribunal found that the Director was properly authorized, that the failure to comply with the work order constituted sufficient grounds for the downgrade, and that the availability of municipal funding was irrelevant to the Director's decision.

The appeal was dismissed and the provisional licence was continued.

The applicant was injured when a motorist deliberately hit her with his car door during a parking dispute, and then exited the vehicle to punch her in the face.

The respondent insurer accepted that the first phase (the car door strike) was an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, but denied benefits for impairments related to the subsequent punches, arguing they resulted from a separate assault.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the incident could not be neatly divided into two phases.

Applying the Greenhalgh test, the Tribunal concluded that the use or operation of the motor vehicle was a direct cause of the applicant's impairments, satisfying the definition of an accident under section 3(1) of the Schedule.