Sandeep Johal

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and applied for income replacement benefits, which the insurer denied because the applicant failed to attend a section 44 insurer examination.

The applicant argued he had a medical note excusing his attendance.

The Tribunal found that while the medical note provided a reasonable explanation for missing the initially scheduled examination, it did not excuse the applicant's failure to attend the rescheduled examination or make subsequent attempts to reschedule.

The Tribunal held that the applicant is barred under section 55(2) of the Schedule from proceeding with his application until he attends the insurer examinations.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident when his bicycle was struck by a car.

He applied for a speech language pathology assessment, which the insurer denied because the applicant failed to attend a section 44 insurer examination.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding with his Tribunal application under section 55(2) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's request for the examination was reasonably necessary and that the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for his non-attendance.

Consequently, the applicant is barred from disputing the denial at the Tribunal until he complies and attends the examination.

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

During her in-person hearing, she suffered an anxiety attack and was unable to complete her cross-examination.

The respondent sought to complete the cross-examination, while the applicant argued her affidavit should be accepted without further questioning.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to complete a limited, two-hour cross-examination via teleconference, with mandatory breaks, to balance the respondent's right to a fair hearing with the applicant's medical needs.

The applicant, an Uber driver, was assaulted while parked and waiting to pick up passengers.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, which the respondent denied on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under section 3 of the Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the incident met the purpose test, it failed the causation test.

The Tribunal concluded that the assault was an intervening act and the direct cause of the applicant's injuries, rather than the use or operation of the vehicle.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her son-in-law was caught driving it while suspended.

The appellant, a 73-year-old pensioner with high blood pressure, argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship as she relied on the vehicle for groceries and medical appointments.

The Tribunal found there was no alternative transportation available and that forcing the appellant to walk long distances in the cold posed a threat to her health and safety.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for the cost of examinations to determine catastrophic impairment.

The respondent denied the request, arguing that its own catastrophic examinations had already been completed and that the applicant's request was not for the purpose of preparing an application under section 45 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not precluded from seeking funding for her own examinations after submitting an OCF-19 application, as this ensures procedural fairness.

The Tribunal partially approved the treatment plan, finding that certain psychological and cognitive assessments, as well as a WPI rating assessment, were reasonable and necessary, while others were duplicative or unnecessary.

The applicant was also awarded interest on the overdue payments.

The appellant appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, which terminated its right to operate commercial trucks in Ontario due to a poor safety record.

The appellant's violation rate exceeded 100%, and it had failed a facility audit, accumulated numerous convictions, and been involved in multiple collisions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's proposed action plan, which included downsizing to one truck, failed to adequately address the safety concerns.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate safely and confirmed the cancellation order.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend and downgrade his commercial driver's licence following an episode of syncope while driving.

The appellant argued that he had undergone extensive medical testing with negative results and had been cleared to drive by his treating physicians after a 12-week waiting period.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a split decision.

The panel chair found that the appellant suffered an atypical vasovagal syncope without warning, and applied the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, which recommend a 12-month asymptomatic waiting period for commercial drivers.

The chair concluded the condition was likely to significantly interfere with safe commercial driving and confirmed the downgrade.

The dissenting member would have reinstated the licence based on the treating physicians' clearance.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 30 days after inspectors found 171 patrons in an area licensed for 94.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did exceed the maximum capacity, violating section 43 of the Regulation.

However, considering mitigating factors such as the lack of serious consequences and the appellant's remedial steps, the Tribunal determined that a 30-day suspension was too harsh.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to suspend the licence for 15 days instead, satisfying the principles of general and specific deterrence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans based on an insurer's examination which concluded the injuries were pre-existing or resolved.

The Tribunal found two of the treatment plans reasonable and necessary, rejecting the insurer's medical assessor's opinion as lacking foundation.

A third treatment plan was denied as a duplication.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue benefits but dismissed the claim for a bad faith award, finding insufficient evidence of unreasonable delay by the insurer.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffered a single seizure as a result of alcohol withdrawal, but the condition was stable, controlled by medication, and the appellant had been alcohol-free for 6-12 months.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not have a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence following a Medical Condition Report citing dementia and paranoia.

The appellant failed to provide an up-to-date cognitive assessment as requested by the Ministry.

The Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a mental or cognitive condition that significantly affects her memory, judgment, problem-solving, sequencing, and insight, making her likely unable to drive safely.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to financial burden and the inconvenience of transporting her children.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including renting a car and receiving transportation assistance from her parents, and that inconvenience cannot be considered under the regulations.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's denial of treatment plans for psychological services and a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found the psychological services reasonable and necessary to assist with pain management and driving anxiety.

The Tribunal also approved the cost of the psychological assessment, rejecting the insurer's argument that the fee was unreasonable for lacking an hourly breakdown, as it fell within the Schedule limit.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue benefits, noting inconsistencies in the insurer's medical examinations, but denied the applicant's request for a special award under O. Reg. 664, finding no evidence that the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.

The appellant appealed a Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a real estate broker under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant's past conduct, including misappropriating $100,000 in trust funds, inducing a breach of a buyer representation agreement, changing the terms of a listing agreement without notice, illegally evicting a tenant, and maintaining deficient trust accounts, afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the allegations substantiated and concluded that the severity of the conduct warranted revocation of the appellant's licence.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her commercial vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her employee was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to financial losses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including renting a friend's truck and using a second commercial vehicle, and therefore failed to meet the statutory test for exceptional hardship.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for exercise equipment, assistive devices, a chronic pain assessment, and chiropractic services under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant relied solely on self-reporting of pain without corroborating medical documentation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer examination assessors, who concluded that the requested treatments and assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

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

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence established the applicant suffered predominantly minor soft tissue injuries.

The applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG cap.

The application for medical benefits and examination costs beyond the $3,500 limit was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological symptoms, including post-traumatic stress disorder, removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed chiropractic and psychological treatment plans, as well as the cost of a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonably delayed payments was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional financial hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as renting a car, carpooling, or taking a taxi.

Because an alternative was available, the Tribunal was prohibited by regulation from considering financial or economic loss.