Patricia Conway

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after her adult son was killed in a motorcycle accident.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not an 'insured person' under the policy.

The applicant was not the named insured, a designated driver, or a spouse, and argued she was a dependant of the named insured (her son's friend).

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant was principally dependent for financial support or care on the named insured.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove she was an insured person under the Schedule.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for psychological and physiotherapy assessments and treatments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied portions of the claims based on independent medical examinations suggesting the costs were excessive or the treatments unnecessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's proposed treatment plans and assessments were reasonable and necessary, rejecting the insurer's independent examiners' conclusions as incomplete or unpersuasive.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the disputed amounts with interest, but denied the applicant's request for a special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after her adult son was killed in a motorcycle accident.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not an 'insured person' under the policy.

The applicant was the owner of the motorcycle, but the named insured was a friend of her son, and the applicant was not a named insured, designated driver, or spouse.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she was principally dependent for financial support or care on the named insured.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits under his mother's insurance policy following the death of his brother in a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied coverage, arguing the applicant was not a 'dependant' of his mother at the time of the accident.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's financial needs, earning capacity, and reliance on his mother for care and support over a one-year period.

Despite the applicant having recently secured employment and moved into an apartment, the Tribunal found he remained principally dependent on his mother for financial support and care.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to process the applicant's claim for benefits.

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

The insurer denied a $5,185 treatment plan for chiropractic services on the basis of insurer examinations.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denial notice failed to comply with s. 38(8) of the SABS because it did not state whether the MIG applied, precluding the insurer from relying on the MIG limit.

However, the Tribunal concluded the proposed treatment was not reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the insurer's assessors that the applicant's accident-related injuries had resolved and his ongoing complaints stemmed from pre-existing degenerative disc disease.

Due to the defective notice, the insurer was ordered to pay any amounts the applicant had already expended on the treatment plan.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and seeking further chiropractic treatments and income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to prove his injuries were non-MIG, relying instead on the insurer's medical assessments which diagnosed minor strains and no psychological impairment.

Consequently, the claim for further medical benefits was denied as the $3,500 MIG limit had been reached.

The claim for IRBs was also dismissed, as the evidence demonstrated the applicant was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

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

The matter was scheduled for a five-day in-person hearing, but the applicant failed to appear and his counsel withdrew.

The hearing was adjourned to a peremptory date for the applicant to address his entitlement to income replacement benefits.

The applicant again failed to appear or respond to communications from the respondent and the Tribunal.

As the applicant failed to lead any evidence to prove his entitlement to the benefits sought, the application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $14,457.14 in Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) paid to the respondent, alleging the payments were made due to error, wilful misrepresentation, or fraud regarding the respondent's employment status at the time of the accident.

The respondent failed to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was never employed by the alleged employer and had submitted false documents to obtain benefits.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to repay the full amount of $14,457.14 plus interest, as the insurer had issued a timely demand for repayment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and assessment services following a minor rear-end collision.

The insurer denied the physical treatments, arguing the applicant's physical injuries were minor and that he exhibited symptom magnification, though it accepted he suffered from psychological impairments and chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's impairments were primarily psychological rather than physical, and that further physical therapy would not be beneficial until his psychological issues were addressed through psychotherapy.

The requests for further orthopedic and functional assessments were also denied as redundant or premature without objective MRI evidence.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits, medical/rehabilitation treatments, and various assessments.

The insurer denied many of the benefits based on reports from its assessors.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant met the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life and awarded non-earner benefits for the 104-week post-accident period.

The Tribunal also approved the disputed treatment plans and assessments, subject to the $2,000 statutory cap per assessment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay interest on overdue benefits and a special award of 33% under O. Reg. 664, finding that the insurer unreasonably delayed approving treatments that its own experts had recommended.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed the Registrar's suspension of her driver's licence.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider a medical report and that her functional driving assessment was conducted during a severe snowstorm, denying her procedural fairness.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that while the medical report was considered, the appellant had also failed her driving assessment, which was an independent requirement for reinstatement.

The Tribunal further held it lacked jurisdiction to order a new driving assessment due to weather conditions.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed the Registrar's suspension of his driver's licence due to a diagnosis of schizophrenia and medication non-compliance.

The appellant argued that the psychiatrist's report relied upon by the Tribunal was untrustworthy and denied having schizophrenia.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the appellant's denial was not new evidence and that he failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The Appellants appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke their liquor licence following two incidents, including one where a patron was overserved and subsequently died of ethanol toxicity, and another involving after-hours service.

The Tribunal found that the breaches of the Liquor Licence Act were proven and afforded reasonable grounds to believe the Appellants would not operate in compliance with the law.

However, considering the Appellants' nine-year blemish-free record and proactive steps taken to prevent recurrence, the Tribunal determined revocation was too harsh.

Instead, the Tribunal ordered a 90-day licence suspension and imposed conditions requiring a manager's presence during peak hours and the development of a formal compliance policy.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial DZ-class driver's licence to a class G licence due to a medical condition of seizures.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal panel was deadlocked on whether the seizures were likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

Pursuant to the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, the panel chair's decision resolved the deadlock.

The chair found that the appellant's seizures, which were generalized and unpredictable, posed an unacceptable risk for commercial driving, confirming the Minister's decision to downgrade the licence.

The dissenting member would have reinstated the commercial licence, finding the seizures were provoked by an anxiety disorder that was now stabilized.

The appellant homeowner appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying his first-year warranty claims for alleged construction defects, including squeaking floors, wide tile grout, defective kitchen cabinetry, and delayed hot water delivery.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove any of the items were defects in workmanship or materials.

The squeaking floors were caused by normal wood shrinkage, the grout width was acceptable for the chosen tiles, the cabinetry met specifications, and the hot water delay was normal given the plumbing layout.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claims.

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

The suspension was based on medical reports indicating the appellant suffered from schizophrenia and was not compliant with his prescribed medication.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's condition, combined with his lack of insight and non-compliance with treatment, significantly interfered with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle for driving while suspended.

He argued that he did not know his licence was suspended following a DUI conviction in New York, that he exercised due diligence by checking his record once, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to his real estate business.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that his licence was indeed suspended, he failed to exercise due diligence by not checking his status regularly or opening registered mail from the Ministry, and he failed to establish exceptional hardship because he had not explored all alternatives, such as renting a vehicle.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the registration of the appellants as a brokerage and broker of record under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, alleging the individual appellant made a false statement by failing to disclose an outstanding judgment and lacked financial responsibility due to outstanding debts to the CRA and a private creditor.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant did not knowingly make a false statement, as he reasonably believed the private debt was being addressed.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant's debts were moderate, he had made consistent efforts to pay them, and his education and experience demonstrated he could be financially responsible.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to grant the registrations subject to conditions regarding debt repayment and reporting.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She argued exceptional hardship and that the vehicle was stolen.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the exceptional hardship claim because the appellant was able to rent an alternative vehicle.

However, the Tribunal found that the vehicle was stolen, as the son took the keys from the appellant's purse while she was sleeping without her consent.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

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

The suspension followed a police report of a collision, subsequent medical condition reports indicating potential driving impairment from medication, and a failed functional driving assessment.

The appellant argued the assessment was unfair due to poor weather conditions and the tester's conduct.

The Tribunal found the functional driving assessment provided the most cogent evidence of the appellant's inability to drive safely and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.