Ian Maedel

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and a treatment plan for chiropractic services.

The Tribunal found the IRB claim was statute-barred under s. 56 of the Schedule, as the application was filed more than two years after the insurer's clear and unequivocal denial.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the LAT Act, noting the lack of a bona fide intention to appeal, an unexplained five-month delay, and prejudice to the respondent.

The claim for chiropractic services was also dismissed, as the applicant failed to provide expert evidence to rebut the respondent's insurer's examination report, which concluded the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The applicant claimed entitlement to expenses for vision therapy and eyeglasses, physiotherapy services, and the unapproved balance of a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the visual impairments were caused by the accident, relying on the respondent's optometry assessment.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's physiatry assessments, which concluded that maximum therapeutic benefit had been reached, over the applicant's lack of responding reports regarding physical injuries.

Finally, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to justify the additional cost claimed for the psychological assessment beyond what the respondent had already approved.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after allegedly having his foot run over by a transit bus.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal held a preliminary issue hearing to determine if an accident occurred.

Applying the Greenhalgh framework, the Tribunal found that while the incident met the purpose test, the applicant failed to satisfy the causation test.

The applicant provided no objective evidence, such as witness statements, medical reports linking the injury to the bus, or incident reports, to corroborate his self-reported version of events.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the use or operation of an automobile directly caused his impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss or stay the application because the applicant failed to attend four insurer's examinations (IEs) related to his claim for post-104 income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal denied the motion to dismiss, finding it would be unduly prejudicial to the applicant.

However, the Tribunal granted a 120-day stay to allow the respondent to conduct vocational, kinesiology, and orthopaedic assessments, which were found to be reasonably necessary under s. 44(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that a requested psychiatric assessment was not reasonably necessary as there was no reasonable nexus to the applicant's injuries.

The applicant brought a motion seeking further particulars regarding a statement made by the respondent's claims representative and seeking to exclude the claims representative from the motion on the basis that she was providing legal services without a license.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for particulars, finding it was a factual issue to be determined at the hearing.

The Tribunal found the request to exclude the representative was moot as counsel had been retained, but noted that unlicensed representatives risk exclusion under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Law Society Act.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits due to her failure to attend an insurer's examination (IE), or alternatively, for a stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the motion to dismiss, finding that barring the application would be unduly prejudicial and contrary to procedural fairness.

However, the Tribunal granted a 120-day stay of proceedings to allow the respondent to schedule and complete the required physiatry IE, as the applicant agreed to attend.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

The respondent insurer brought a motion to determine as a preliminary issue whether the applicant's slip and fall constituted an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant slipped on ice in a parking lot while walking toward her vehicle and unlocking it with a key fob.

Applying the Greenhalgh framework, the Tribunal found that while the incident arose from the ordinary use of a vehicle, the use or operation of the vehicle did not directly cause the impairment.

The Tribunal concluded that the ice was the dominant feature and direct cause of the injuries, making the vehicle's involvement merely ancillary.

The incident was deemed not an accident, and the application for accident benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in December 2018 but did not apply for statutory accident benefits until December 2019.

The respondent insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant failed to notify it of her intention to apply within seven days, as required by section 32(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay under section 34, noting that ignorance of the law and a subjective belief that injuries would improve are not reasonable excuses.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent was prejudiced by the delay and dismissed the application as statute-barred under section 55(1).

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that barred his claim for attendant care benefits.

The applicant's former counsel had removed herself from the record the day before submissions were due, leaving the applicant unrepresented and unaware of the decision.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal and that denying the extension would result in a denial of procedural fairness.

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

The parties reached a settlement and waived the requirement for a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a Consent Order binding the appellant to the terms of the settlement agreement, which included conditions on his registration, completion of a certification course, and resolution of an outstanding lien on a previously sold vehicle.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to revoke her registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a Consent Order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal waived the hearing requirement and ordered that the appellant be bound by the terms of the consent agreement, which included conditions on her registration for a period of two years.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's sur-reply submissions, arguing they were filed without leave and contained no relevant information.

The applicant contended that leave was not required under the Tribunal's rules and that the submissions were necessary to correct misleading statements.

The Tribunal held that leave is required to file sur-reply submissions to ensure procedural fairness, finality, and efficiency.

However, given the severe potential consequence of the preliminary issue—a complete bar to benefits under s. 55 of the Schedule—the Tribunal admitted the sur-reply submissions and granted the respondent an opportunity to file a brief reply.

The respondent moved to dismiss the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits as abandoned after the applicant missed a deadline for written submissions.

The delay was caused by the death of the applicant's former counsel, a fact known to the respondent.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of abandonment given the applicant's clear intention to proceed once new counsel was retained.

The Tribunal awarded $250 in costs to the applicant, holding that the respondent acted in bad faith by pursuing the motion despite knowing the exceptional circumstances.

The appellants and the added party appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to revoke and refuse their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salespersons.

The parties reached a settlement and waived the requirement of a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a Consent Order directing that the appellants and the added party be bound by the terms of the consent agreement, which allows them to remain registered subject to strict conditions regarding registration, premises, books and records, disclosure, financial responsibility, and course requirements.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of the appellants as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson, and to refuse the registration of an added party as a salesperson.

The parties reached a settlement and waived the requirement of a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order maintaining the registrations subject to extensive terms and conditions regarding compliance, premises, books and records, disclosure, financial responsibility, and course requirements.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a motion order that dismissed his application for accident benefits as an abuse of process.

The dismissal followed the applicant's repeated failure to complete a psychological insurer's examination over three years, including refusing to sign consent forms and threatening assessors.

The Vice Chair found no error of law or jurisdiction in the original dismissal, rejecting arguments of res judicata, assessor bias, and adjudicator bias.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The parties reached a settlement and waived the requirement of a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order directing that the appellant be bound by the terms of the consent agreement, which imposes conditions on his registration for a period of three years.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of Prime One Auto Inc. as a motor vehicle dealer and James Pournader as a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the appellants remain registered subject to extensive terms and conditions regarding compliance, premises, books and records, disclosure, and financial responsibility, as set out in the consent agreement.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a motion order that found a treatment plan payable in its entirety under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The respondent argued it was only liable for incurred treatment between a deficient Explanation of Benefits and a cured one.

However, the applicant withdrew the application before the reconsideration was decided.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the issue moot and that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter further following the withdrawal.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision to close the file after the applicant withdrew her application for statutory accident benefits.

The respondent argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by failing to adjudicate its prior motion, which sought to bar the applicant for failing to attend insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the withdrawal rendered the respondent's motion moot.

Unlike previous cases where a failure to address a costs request constituted a breach of procedural fairness, the respondent had not sought costs in its original motion.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's new request for costs, noting it was improperly raised in reply submissions and did not meet the high threshold for unreasonable conduct.