D. Gregory Flude

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought enhanced statutory accident benefits, claiming she suffered a catastrophic impairment due to a brain injury resulting in a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 9 or less.

The respondent argued the low GCS scores were caused by intubation and sedation rather than brain impairment.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's brain impairment and lowered GCS scores were directly caused by the brain injury and hypovolaemia resulting from the accident.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment and is entitled to enhanced benefits.

The respondent insurance company brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits, arguing it was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.

The applicant had filed for mediation with FSCO prior to the expiration of the limitation period, but the mediation was cancelled due to the respondent's failure to confirm attendance.

The Tribunal held that the 90-day extension of the limitation period following a failed mediation under the pre-April 1, 2016 Insurance Act applied, despite the transfer of jurisdiction to the Tribunal.

The motion to dismiss was therefore dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB) until the respondent insurer terminated it, claiming the applicant could return to work.

The applicant sought reinstatement of the IRB, arguing he was physically and psychologically incapable of working.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries had healed, the accident materially worsened his pre-existing depression and caused severe post-traumatic stress disorder.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating psychologists over the insurer's assessor, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding IRB amounts with interest.

The insurer brought a motion to prohibit the applicant from proceeding with an application for statutory accident benefits because she failed to attend an Insurer's Examination (IE) in 2011.

The insurer argued that under section 55(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, this failure barred her from applying to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the notices sent by the insurer in 2011 were defective because they failed to set out adequate medical and other reasons for the examinations, as required by the Schedule.

The insurer's motion was dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits and Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) beyond what the insurer approved.

The insurer capped medical benefits at $3,500 under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and terminated IRB, arguing the applicant no longer suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and that she failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition or chronic pain syndrome that would warrant exceeding the MIG cap.

Furthermore, relying on the insurer's multidisciplinary assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant was capable of performing the essential tasks of her employment and dismissed the claim for IRB.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment beyond the $3,500 limit set by the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant bore the onus of proving her injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded that the medical evidence provided was insufficient to establish that a pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

The application for the $249.95 balance for physiotherapy was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB).

The insurer denied the claim because the applicant was driving with an expired driver's licence at the time of the accident.

The applicant argued he was unaware his licence had expired.

The Tribunal held that the clear language of s. 31(1)(a)(ii) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule excludes a driver from receiving an IRB if they do not hold a valid licence, regardless of their knowledge or intent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought Non-Earner Benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurance company denied.

The respondent argued the application for dispute resolution was time-barred because it was filed on the two-year anniversary of the denial letter, which it claimed was one day late.

The Tribunal held that the two-year limitation period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule expires on the anniversary date of the denial, meaning the application was filed in a timely manner.

The Appellant appealed Notices of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence for allegedly permitting drunkenness, serving intoxicated patrons, and encouraging immoderate consumption of alcohol.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant permitted drunkenness and served intoxicated patrons on two occasions, as the patrons displayed obvious signs of intoxication that staff ought to have noticed.

However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the Appellant encouraged immoderate consumption, as serving multiple drinks at last call on one occasion did not constitute a practice or program.

A preliminary motion to compel the Deputy Registrar to testify was dismissed as irrelevant to the de novo proceeding.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

She argued exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d), citing her own medical condition requiring an MRI, her daughter's severe anxiety and dental issues, and the lack of reasonable alternative transportation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle and that the impoundment posed a threat to the health and safety of persons ordinarily transported by it.

The appeal was allowed and the impoundment was set aside.

The Appellants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their new home warranty claim.

The Appellants failed to request a conciliation inspection within the 30-day period ending on the 150th day after filing their claim forms, as required by O. Reg. 892/90.

The Tribunal found that the Appellants' claim was deemed withdrawn due to this failure and that there were no extraordinary circumstances to justify extending the time limits.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Registrar proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days for obstructing an inspection and breaching a condition prohibiting gaming machines.

The Tribunal previously found the breach of condition proven but not the obstruction.

On the issue of sanction, the Registrar sought a 10 to 12-day suspension.

The Tribunal noted the appellant had relied on former counsel's advice that unplugged machines did not violate the condition, characterizing the breach as mistaken rather than wilful.

The Tribunal ordered a seven-day suspension.

The appellant child care centre brought a motion to stay a Protection Order issued by the Director under the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014, which suspended its operations due to alleged inappropriate infant feeding practices.

The Tribunal first determined it had the ancillary authority under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and its home statute to grant an interim stay, despite the Act's silence on staying suspensions.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the appellant's business, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay because the appellant had already eliminated the imminent threat by suspending the involved staff and closing the infant room.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

On the second day of the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar not to carry out the proposal and to renew the appellant's registration subject to specified conditions, including restrictions on signing authority and dealership control.

The Registrar proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days, alleging the appellant obstructed an inspection and possessed gaming machines on the premises in breach of a licence condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant breached the condition by having two gaming machines on the premises, as the appellant admitted they were previously used for illegal gaming and had not been removed.

However, the Tribunal found the appellant did not obstruct the inspector, as the evidence did not establish on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's principal outright denied the presence of the machines.

The parties were directed to make submissions on penalty.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a suspended driver.

She argued the vehicle was stolen, the driver was not suspended, she exercised due diligence, and the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the vehicle was lent by her son without restrictions, the driver was subject to a lifetime driving ban, no due diligence was exercised to check the driver's licence status, and the appellant had access to a second vehicle, negating exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant rental car company appealed the 180-day impoundment of its vehicle after it was rented to a suspended driver.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by checking the driver's licence and requiring additional identification.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise reasonable prudence.

The appellant's staff only cursorily examined the licence, missing an obvious error in the licence number, and the company deliberately chose not to use the Ministry of Transportation's licence verification services to avoid increasing rental wait times.

The appellant purchased a property six years after its first occupation and discovered significant water penetration and structural issues in the basement.

Before notifying Tarion, the appellant undertook extensive excavations and repairs costing over $250,000.

The Tribunal found that while two issues (an inadequately supported LVL beam and a knee wall) constituted major structural defects under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, the appellant's claim must fail.

By undertaking extensive self-help repairs before contacting Tarion, the appellant denied Tarion its statutory right to inspect the defects and determine the necessary scope of repairs.

The appellant appealed Tarion's denial of her claim for warranty coverage regarding a new condominium unit.

The appellant sought the return of her deposit, arguing she had validly rescinded the agreement due to delayed closing.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had exhausted her right to rescind the agreement when she signed an occupancy agreement and took possession of the unit.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion's decision to deny the claim was upheld.

The Appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,500 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for permitting the removal of alcoholic beverages from a licensed area during a wine festival.

The Tribunal found that, on a balance of probabilities, patrons were observed leaving the licensed area with ice wine in their glasses.

Despite the Appellant's security measures, they were insufficient to prevent the removal of alcohol.

The Tribunal confirmed the monetary penalty and dismissed the appeal.