Michael Beauchesne

The appellant appealed a decision by the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claim for compensation for a deposit paid to a home builder.

The appellant argued she had exercised her statutory right to rescind the agreement of purchase and sale (APS) and that the builder committed a fundamental breach by failing to set a delayed closing date and selling the home to another buyer.

The Tribunal found that the builder's unavoidable delay notices were invalid, meaning the original critical dates applied, and the appellant's termination notice was provided after the termination period had expired.

Furthermore, applying the Spirent factors, the Tribunal held that the builder's failure to set a delayed closing date did not constitute a fundamental breach, as it did not deprive the appellant of substantially the whole benefit of the APS.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal first denied the applicant's request for a sealing order and anonymity, finding the applicant failed to meet the high threshold established in Sherman Estate.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a gym membership, once-weekly personal training, a progress report, and a physiatry assessment, as these were reasonable and necessary to address his ongoing physical and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal denied the remaining claims for 90-minute psychological sessions and occupational therapy assessments.

The applicant's claim for a section 10 award for unreasonable withholding of benefits was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to chiropractic services and a psychological assessment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support a pre-existing condition or accident-related psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's section 44 psychological assessment over the applicant's uncorroborated self-reports.

The Tribunal also concluded the applicant's pain did not constitute a severe, debilitating condition accompanied by functional impairment.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the MIG limits and was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, an award for unreasonable delay, or interest.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence for 60 days following a fatal motor vehicle accident involving a patron.

The patron had consumed 10 ounces of alcohol at the licensed premises in under an hour before driving the wrong way on a highway and colliding with a transport truck.

The Tribunal found that the appellant permitted alcohol to be sold to an intoxicated person, permitted intoxication on the premises, allowed an uncertified bartender to serve alcohol, and served alcohol after hours.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the 60-day licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized when another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship regarding her employment and childcare transportation needs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative transportation was available, as she had access to a rental vehicle, rides from co-workers, public transit options, and assistance from family members.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying compensation for multiple claim items under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to remedy contractual disputes outside the enumerated warranties of the Act, such as the builder's failure to provide a two-car garage or a basement subfloor.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding breaches of warranty for a misaligned front door, a defective clothes washer drain pan, bathtub scratches, and scratched door plates, awarding compensation from the guarantee fund.

The remaining claims, including those for an allegedly undersized air conditioner, buckled fascia, and chipped stone, were dismissed for failing to prove a defect in materials or workmanship.

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 conditions, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition or that he sustained accident-related psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment.

As the applicant remained in the MIG and the available limits were not exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship because she had sold the vehicle prior to the impoundment.

The Tribunal first granted an extension of time to file the appeal, applying the Manuel test.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she owned and used an alternative vehicle (a 2023 Tesla).

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing his physical injuries fell outside the MIG and that he sustained an accident-related psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence supported physical injuries consistent with the MIG, such as cervical strain and whiplash-associated disorder.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not sustain an accident-related psychological impairment, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence corroborating his reported symptoms.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the limit was nearly exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The application was dismissed.

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 for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing right-leg fracture and an accident-related psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal afforded little weight to the applicant's psychological assessment due to a lack of corroborating medical records and reliability issues.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, her claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award were 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's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to establish an accident-related psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, noting a lack of corroborating medical evidence.

As the applicant remained in the MIG and the funding limit was nearly exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding compensation for defective floor tiles and grout in his new home.

Tarion offered a cash settlement of $1,100, while the appellant sought $14,500 based on an estimate to redo the entire kitchen floor.

The Tribunal found the appellant's estimate disproportionate to the warrantable defects.

However, noting the builder's previous failed repair attempts and the appellant's desire to have the issue fixed rather than receive cash, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under s. 14(19) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to order Tarion to perform or arrange for the repairs itself, using a contractor other than the builder, in lieu of paying damages.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying his claim for compensation regarding alleged defects in his new home's kitchen cabinets and a wooden balcony support post.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove the cabinet stain colour differed from his design centre selection or that the cracks in the wooden post constituted a structural deficiency under the Ontario Building Code.

Although the Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the builder for surreptitiously filling the post cracks prior to the conciliation assessment, this was insufficient to establish a structural defect.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was not entitled to payment from the guarantee fund.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to various treatment plans and assessments outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and did not result in functional impairment consistent with chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no evidence of psychological impairment, over the applicant's assessment.

Consequently, the applicant was not removed from the MIG, and the claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The appellant appealed an Immediate Suspension Order and a Notice of Proposal to revoke its liquor licence.

The Registrar argued that two firearm-related incidents at the licensed premises, including a shooting and the seizure of loaded firearms, demonstrated that the appellant's sole shareholder would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to implement effective security measures despite the incidents and prior warnings.

The Tribunal concluded that the past and present conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be operated safely, and ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act for driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence in attempting to determine his licence status, relying on a driver record search from March 2025 that showed he was licensed, and his subsequent successful licence renewal in April 2025.

The Tribunal found the appellant took reasonable actions to determine he was properly licensed and that the respondent's suspension letter was issued just days before the impoundment with no proof of delivery.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for an attendant care benefit and other medical benefits.

She argued the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness and errors of law and fact by ignoring evidence, refusing an electronic hearing, and dismissing the attendant care claim in its entirety despite a partial concession by the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the allegedly ignored evidence had not been properly filed, the written hearing format was appropriate, and the entire quantum of the attendant care benefit was properly in dispute.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to an income replacement benefit.

She argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by allowing the respondent's late motion to strike her reply evidence, made errors of fact regarding her pre-accident employment, and sought to introduce new adjuster log notes.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the applicant had ample opportunity to respond to the motion.

The adjudicator also found no errors of fact based on the admitted evidence and declined to admit the new log notes because the applicant failed to demonstrate they could not have been obtained previously.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The issues in dispute included entitlement to interest on previously paid income replacement and attendant care benefits, funding for a new home purchase and modifications, psychological and social rehabilitative services, physical therapies, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to interest on the IRB and ACB payments, as the respondent had already remitted the appropriate amounts.

The claim for a new home and modifications was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove it was more reasonable to purchase a new home than to renovate his existing one.

The Tribunal approved the psychological services and partially approved the social rehabilitative and physical therapies, finding them reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's accident-related impairments.

The claim for an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with the page limit for written submissions.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing and had not communicated with the Tribunal since his representative withdrew.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence under Rule 3.7.1.

As the applicant presented no evidence or arguments, he failed to meet his onus to prove entitlement to the disputed benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal declined to award costs to the respondent, noting that penalizing a self-represented party for procedural lapses could discourage access to justice.