OLAT 2014

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $1,482.00 for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plan based on an insurer examination which concluded the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's back and neck injuries were pre-existing and not accident-related.

Furthermore, the proposed treatment was substantially similar to previous physiotherapy that had worsened the applicant's condition.

The application was dismissed and no interest was payable.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an appeal of a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation to disallow a claim under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting the hearing dates for September 2014.

The Tribunal also directed Tarion to issue a decision letter relating to a specific item in its Warranty Assessment Report, which would become part of the appeal, and set deadlines for document disclosure and witness lists.

The appellants brought a pre-hearing motion seeking to resolve an item on a warranty assessment report and to exclude certain expert reports.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the motion to the first day of the hearing, citing the unavailability of a key witness.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the appellants' motion was premature and could be fairly addressed at the commencement of the hearing without prejudicing the parties.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their new home warranty claim.

At the outset of the hearing, the respondent and the added party brought motions to quash summonses issued for two witnesses.

The Tribunal granted the motions and quashed the summonses on the basis of undertakings from counsel that both witnesses would be produced to testify and be cross-examined at the hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding a new home warranty claim.

Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal heard six preliminary motions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' motions seeking a forced cash settlement, certificates of impartiality for witnesses, and the exclusion of certain expert reports.

The Tribunal partially granted the appellants' motion for document disclosure, ordering the added party to produce specific invoices and correspondence.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the respondent's motion to quash a summons issued to its President and C.E.O., finding he had no relevant evidence to provide.

The respondent brought a motion to adjourn the commencement of the hearing to September 5, 2014.

The added party consented, but the appellants opposed the motion.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and ordered the respondent to pay the appellants $500.00 in costs.

The Tribunal also ordered that witnesses subject to pending motions to quash their summonses need not attend the hearing until those motions are resolved.

The Appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to revoke their Motor Vehicle Inspection Station licence and mechanic's registration.

The Ministry presented evidence that the Appellants had issued safety certificates for numerous vehicles with severe defects, including extensive corrosion, that should not have passed inspection.

The Appellants argued that they lacked education on corrosion and relied on advice from other mechanics.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellants failed to meet inspection requirements and posed a risk to public safety.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and ordered the revocation of the licence and registration.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse to renew the registration of Key2Careers College of Business and Technology Inc. under the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005, citing a lack of vocational student enrollments for more than two successive periods and concerns regarding the school's financial responsibility.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the school had no vocational students, failed to meet revenue projections, and was providing non-vocational programs that did not require registration under the Act.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to refuse to renew the registration.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for failing to provide a breath sample.

The appellant argued that he was unable to provide a sample due to asthma.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence provided by the appellant was insufficient to link his asthma to an inability to provide a breath sample.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the police officers, who testified that the appellant appeared to breathe normally until asked to blow into the device, at which point his breathing seemed artificially laboured.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for $7,500 in damages for an alleged delayed closing of their new home.

The appellants argued that although they received title and appliances on the firm closing date, the range hood was not installed until later, forcing them to stay with relatives.

The tribunal found that the vendor provided proper 90-day written notice of the tentative and firm closing dates, and the transaction closed on the firm closing date.

An occupancy permit was also issued prior to closing.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of warranty.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's boyfriend, a suspended driver, was caught driving it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative means of transportation, including a second vehicle, taxis, and public transit, and that her son's medical appointments and her job search did not meet the threshold for exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's spouse, a suspended driver, was caught driving it.

The appellant argued the vehicle was taken without permission and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the keys were readily available and there was no explicit prohibition against the spouse driving.

The Tribunal also dismissed the exceptional hardship claim because the appellant had access to alternative transportation, having rented a vehicle for work.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims for improperly installed siding, basement water penetration, and poor paint finish.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the siding met the applicable deflection standards and that the basement moisture was likely caused by condensation rather than water penetration.

The Tribunal also held that the paint finish met the Construction Performance Guidelines.

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

The appellant, a registered travel retailer, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The Registrar cited the appellant's repeated failure to submit timely financial statements, maintain minimum working capital, and the provision of false or altered financial documents.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the past conduct of the appellant's co-owners afforded reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's common-law partner, whose licence was suspended, drove it.

The appellant argued that the vehicle was taken without her consent while she was asleep, after she had explicitly refused him permission to drive it.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible and concluded that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of section 50.2(3)(a) of the Act at the time of the impoundment.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant was caught driving while his licence was suspended due to an impaired driving conviction in the United States.

The appellant argued he was unaware of the reciprocal agreement suspending his Ontario licence and claimed exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence to determine his licence status and that alternative transportation was available, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The Appellant, a paramedic with epilepsy, appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence after he suffered a seizure due to a missed dose of medication.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant had insight into his condition, was compliant with therapy, and had implemented a system to ensure he did not miss future doses.

The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend his licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's husband drove it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued that the loss of the vehicle caused hardship due to her pregnancy and medical appointments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that alternative transportation was available, including public transit and other vehicles at her residence, and that her unborn baby was not at risk.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims for bowing brick cladding and defective mortar on a new home.

The Tribunal found that the bowing of the brick walls was not readily visible and did not constitute a defect in workmanship.

Regarding the mortar, the Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the defect was localized to the bottom five feet of the wall due to winter construction freezing, rejecting the appellant's claim that all mortar required replacement.

However, the Tribunal found that the repair work caused damage to some bricks and resulted in mismatched mortar colours, ordering Tarion to tint the affected areas.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence to increase capacity by adding an outdoor rear patio.

Several local residents objected, citing concerns about noise, traffic, and garbage.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had a stellar record and operated primarily as a restaurant, not a bar.

The objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application without additional conditions.