Kevin Kovalchuk

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

The Registrar alleged the licence was obtained through a bribery scheme involving commercial driver examiners, relying on information from an OPP investigation.

The Tribunal granted a confidentiality order protecting the identities of individuals in the OPP investigation.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that while the OPP had reasonable grounds to believe the licence was fraudulently obtained, the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the appellant participated in the bribery scheme or obtained his licence through fraud.

The Tribunal set aside the licence suspension.

The applicant applied under s. 11(4) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019 to remove four conditions from its liquor licence.

The conditions were originally imposed over sixteen years ago on a previous licensee.

Following public notice, no concerns were raised regarding the removal of three of the conditions.

The respondent consented to the removal of those three conditions, and the applicant withdrew its request to remove the fourth condition.

The Tribunal found that the change in circumstances justified the removal of the three conditions.

The appellant rental car company appealed the 180-day impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after the renter was caught driving in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence in checking the licence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to establish due diligence, as it relied on general testimony and the renter's own representation rather than checking with the Ministry of Transportation.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had 50,000 vehicles in Ontario, meaning alternatives were available.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for warranty compensation for water-damaged basement flooring.

The flooding occurred due to a failure of the home's sump pumps during a rainstorm.

The Tribunal found that whether the flooding was caused by a defect in the sump pumps or the electrical system, the resulting damage to the flooring was derivative of the failure to construct in accordance with s. 13(1) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Applying the Divisional Court's reasoning in Liddiard, the Tribunal concluded the damage was 'secondary damage' and therefore excluded from warranty coverage under s. 13(2) of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident involving a school bus.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), she was entitled to be removed from the MIG due to a psychological impairment, specifically post-traumatic stress disorder.

The applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as she failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, with evidence showing no significant difference in her pre- and post-accident activities.

The Tribunal approved a treatment plan for psychological services but denied other plans for chiropractic and orthopaedic assessments due to a lack of supporting evidence.

A claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was also dismissed.

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 Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG, placing little weight on a psychological report based solely on self-reporting.

Claims for income replacement benefits were dismissed due to a lack of supporting medical evidence.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay $200.00 for an improperly deducted disability certificate fee, but denied the remaining treatment plans as the MIG limits were exhausted.

A claim for a bad faith award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits and medical/rehabilitation benefits outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, as the evidence did not support a diagnosis of chronic pain or psychological impairment sufficient to remove him from the MIG.

Because the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The claim for income replacement benefits was also dismissed for lack of evidence regarding the applicant's inability to perform essential employment tasks.

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

The suspension was based on medical reports indicating the appellant suffered from an uncontrolled alcohol and substance use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence established the appellant had a substance use disorder that had not been adequately resolved.

Applying the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded the condition was likely to significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, medication expenses, and a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's section 44 assessments and surveillance evidence, which showed the applicant engaging in various physical activities, over the applicant's medical evidence.

The claims for medication expenses, interest, and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including costs for catastrophic impairment assessments, nursing home services, visitor expenses, and damaged clothing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving entitlement to any of the claimed expenses.

The catastrophic assessment costs exceeded the $2,000 limit per assessment under section 25(5) of the Schedule, and insufficient evidence was provided to support the reasonableness and necessity of the other claimed expenses.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, along with claims for interest and a special award.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that he suffered from chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of chronic pain with functional impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent provided clear medical reasons for its denials within the required timelines.

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 failed to provide submissions or evidence as to why she should be removed from the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the MIG limits, and the disputed treatment plans were not considered.

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

The applicant claimed removal from the MIG was warranted due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment, placing little weight on his expert's diagnosis because it did not address functional limitations.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, finding no psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that the respondent failed to provide compliant denial notices under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, which should preclude it from relying on the MIG limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the respondent's denial notices and notice of examination were compliant with the Schedule, as they provided sufficient medical reasons based on section 44 assessments.

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 applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claims of pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG limits.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for various treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to a treatment plan for physiotherapy services aimed at treating post-concussion syndrome, preferring the evidence of the applicant's assessors who conducted in-person and comprehensive evaluations over the respondent's virtual assessment.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for other physiotherapy, chiropractic, massage, exercise therapy, and prescription eyewear, finding insufficient contemporaneous medical evidence to establish that they were reasonable and necessary.

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 applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing left shoulder condition and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a documented pre-existing condition, there was no compelling medical evidence that it would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer from chronic pain with functional impairment, as she continued to work and medical imaging was normal.

The application for treatment plans beyond the MIG limit and interest was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued that chronic pain and psychological injuries removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of functionally disabling chronic pain or a psychological impairment, noting the lack of corroborating medical records.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limits were exhausted, the application for disputed benefits and interest was dismissed.