Rachel Levitsky

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

Relying on an unsolicited Medical Condition Report indicating a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, and applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The licence suspension was confirmed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he was not 'employed' prior to the accident and therefore not entitled to income replacement benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred by considering the quantum of WSIB payments, his decision to extend a work placement, and the interpretation of a WSIB letter.

The Tribunal found no error of law or fact in the original decision, noting that the evidence was relevant to determining whether the applicant received remuneration in exchange for services provided to an employer.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of income replacement benefits paid to the respondent, alleging an overpayment due to an error in calculation.

The initial request for repayment of $7,130.20 was made within the 12-month statutory timeframe under s. 52 of the Schedule.

However, a subsequent request for a revised overpayment amount of $2,228.34 was made outside the 12-month period.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence or submissions regarding the quantum of the alleged overpayment for the period in dispute.

The application for repayment and interest was dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $41,212.00 in income replacement benefits paid to the respondent, alleging wilful misrepresentation of his employment status.

The respondent did not participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent misrepresented his employment status by working while claiming not to be, and by failing to produce required financial documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to repay the full amount of $41,212.00 plus interest pursuant to section 52 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

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

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

After the applicant was removed from the MIG, the respondent failed to provide updated denial notices with medical reasons for several treatment plans.

The Tribunal applied the Divisional Court's decision in Suarez, holding that the defective notices could not be cured, and ordered those treatment plans payable once incurred.

The Tribunal also evaluated the substantive reasonableness and necessity of the remaining treatment plans, granting entitlement to psychological and occupational therapy based on the applicant's exacerbated pre-existing conditions, while denying further physical therapy and neurological assessments.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's reliance on its assessors was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied benefits and sought repayment, arguing the collision was staged or did not occur as reported.

Relying on forensic engineering evidence that contradicted the applicant's version of events, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove he was involved in an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant wilfully misrepresented material facts, entitling the insurer to terminate benefits under s. 53 and ordering the applicant to repay $3,806.09 plus interest.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to a non-earner benefit and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator erred in law and fact by failing to properly apply the Heath test and compare her pre- and post-accident activities, and sought to introduce new evidence including medical reports and her ODSP file.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact, as the original decision properly assessed causation and the applicant's failure to meet her burden of proof regarding her activities between two successive accidents.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the proposed new evidence either could have been obtained previously or would not have likely affected the outcome of the hearing.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits and various treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, social work, and a psychological assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claim for attendant care, finding the applicant failed to prove an ongoing need.

However, the Tribunal approved several of the treatment plans, either in whole or in part, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also granted an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, ordering the respondent to pay $600 (15% of the denied occupational therapy benefits) because it unreasonably maintained its denial despite its own assessor recommending the treatment.

Preliminary motions regarding page limits and striking portions of the applicant's reply submissions were also addressed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Quebec and elected to receive benefits under Quebec's Automobile Insurance Act.

He applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for an income replacement indemnity and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to adduce compelling medical evidence demonstrating that the accident caused him to be unable to hold employment.

As no benefits were payable, the claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the applicant was involved in an 'accident' after being struck by a wheel loader.

The respondent argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and erred in law and fact by misapplying the 'ordinary parlance' test from Adams and improperly weighing evidence regarding a police accident report.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondent had the opportunity to make submissions on the Adams test at the hearing and was improperly attempting to re-litigate the case and reweigh evidence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic, massage therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, and assistive devices.

The Tribunal found that the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing right hip osteoarthritis, necessitating a hip replacement.

The Tribunal approved a May 2022 treatment plan for chiropractic and massage therapy, as well as a long-handled tub scrubber, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The remaining treatment plans were denied due to a lack of compelling evidence demonstrating their necessity or because the expenses were incurred prior to the submission of a treatment plan.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

She submitted her application for benefits (OCF-1) 10 months after receiving the application package.

The respondent denied benefits and argued the application was statute-barred.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, as her reasons regarding her son's health and family bereavements did not adequately explain the 10-month delay.

The application was dismissed pursuant to section 55(1) of the Schedule.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied benefits and argued the applicant was barred from proceeding because he failed to submit the OCF-1 application within the prescribed 30-day time limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, as the insurer's correspondence regarding the interplay between WSIB benefits and accident benefits was confusing.

Although the applicant was not barred from proceeding, the Tribunal closed the file as there were no substantive issues in dispute.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the insurer.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding under s. 55 of the Schedule for failing to attend requested insurer examinations (IEs) under s. 44.

The Tribunal found that the requested physiatry and psychological IEs were reasonably necessary and that the notice letters complied with the Schedule.

As the applicant failed to attend without a reasonable explanation, her application was dismissed.

However, the Tribunal awarded the applicant $500 in costs due to the insurer's unreasonable conduct in delaying the production of an occupational therapy report.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and several treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefit, as he continued to work full-time and did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal allowed some of the disputed treatment plans, including physiotherapy, an in-home assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Other treatment plans were denied, and the Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments that they were payable due to defective denial notices under s. 38(11).

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $500 in costs due to the respondent's unreasonable failure to comply with production orders.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $131.51 for physiotherapy services because its denial notice failed to provide sufficient medical reasons as required by s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Claims for a psychological assessment, medication, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for several treatment plans for physiotherapy, chiropractic services, and a catastrophic impairment assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the physical therapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of compelling evidence of improvement.

However, because the insurer provided a late denial notice for one treatment plan, the applicant was entitled to payment for the single treatment session incurred during the late period.

The Tribunal also awarded $2,000 for a psychological assessment under criterion 8, finding it was not a duplication of services, but denied the remaining disputed assessment costs and the claim for a special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on snow and ice next to his parked vehicle.

He did not notify the respondent insurer of the incident until eight months later, after learning he required shoulder surgery.

The respondent denied benefits and raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding due to the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to notify the insurer within seven days or as soon as practicable, and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that ignorance of the law and waiting for the injury to reach a certain severity threshold are not reasonable explanations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to submit his OCF-1 application within the prescribed 30-day period.

The respondent denied benefits and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

As a preliminary issue, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant was barred from proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanation for the delay—that submitting the form would complicate ongoing settlement negotiations for a prior accident—was not reasonable.

Consequently, the applicant was barred from applying to the Tribunal under section 55(1) of the Schedule.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied benefits and argued the applicant was precluded from proceeding because she had entered into a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal found the applicant validly rescinded the settlement within the two-day cooling-off period under the Legislation Act.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal held the applicant sustained a psychological impairment (vehicular anxiety) warranting removal from the Minor Injury Guideline.

However, the Tribunal denied the treatment plan for an in-home functional assessment due to a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence supporting its necessity.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.