OLAT 2016

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

The respondent denied four treatment plans, arguing two were statute-barred and the applicant's injuries fell within the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The Tribunal found the first treatment plan was statute-barred but the second was not.

While the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, compelling evidence of a pre-existing degenerative disc disease demonstrated he could not achieve maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

However, the applicant failed to provide evidence or submissions proving the remaining treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, resulting in their dismissal.

No costs were awarded.

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

During a case conference, the applicant sought to withdraw the application, prompting the respondent insurer to bring a motion for costs, arguing the applicant acted frivolously by proceeding without supporting evidence.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the costs motion despite the withdrawal.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, concluding the applicant had a bona fide reason to dispute the claim denial and did not act frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith.

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

The appellant argued that he had only experienced a single unprovoked seizure due to lack of sleep and alcohol consumption, and that a diagnosis of epilepsy was not justified.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that, given a prior unexplained episode of falling out of bed and the recent nocturnal seizure, there was sufficient concern regarding the risk of recurrence.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded that a six-month seizure-free period was necessary for public safety and confirmed the suspension.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's boyfriend, whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction, was caught driving it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the vehicle, such as public transit and walking, and that the inconvenience and financial burden did not meet the strict statutory threshold for exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend her driver's licence due to a medical report indicating cognitive impairment.

The initial suspension was based on a report recommending a functional driving assessment.

However, subsequent medical reports from the appellant's geriatrician and family physician indicated that her condition had significantly improved following treatment for pain, her symptoms were stable, and a functional driving assessment was no longer necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after her boyfriend drove it while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to the financial costs of towing, storage, and securing a replacement vehicle for her commute to work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle and that the financial loss, while significant, did not meet the strict legislative test of being 'immediate, significant and lasting'.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for exceeding the licensed capacity of its premises on St. Patrick's Day.

Two AGCO inspectors conducted independent counts and found 201 and 192 patrons, respectively, exceeding the licensed capacity of 160.

The Tribunal accepted the inspectors' evidence over the appellant's indirect evidence and confirmed the $1,000 monetary penalty.

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

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence in attempting to determine his son's licence status and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to make active inquiries about the licence status despite knowing his son's history of alcoholism and previous impaired driving charges.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had other vehicles available for personal use.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it was taken without her consent by her husband, a suspended driver, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible that she had explicitly forbidden her husband from driving the vehicle and that he took it while she was sleeping.

Applying the definition of theft, the Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained.

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

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a medical report of a possible seizure.

The appellant argued the incident was a syncopal episode caused by heat and dehydration, not an alcohol withdrawal seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the medical evidence supported a syncopal episode and that the appellant did not suffer from a condition or addiction likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was set aside.

The appellants brought a motion for the presiding member to recuse himself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The allegations were based on the member's denial of adjournment and disclosure motions, exposure to privileged settlement information during the respondent's opening submissions, and the member's questioning of a witness.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that unfavourable rulings do not constitute bias, adjudicators are capable of disregarding inadmissible evidence, and there was insufficient evidence regarding the alleged improper questioning.

The appellant, a registered real estate salesperson, appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's failure to disclose numerous criminal convictions, regulatory offences, and unpaid judgments on his renewal applications, as well as concerns regarding his financial responsibility and past conduct.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's current financial position, comprehensive history of non-compliance with the law, and repeated false statements on renewal applications justified revocation under section 10(1) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's request to maintain his registration with conditions, concluding that conditions would not sufficiently address the multi-faceted concerns and the risk of future non-disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the revocation.

The Appellant's father purchased a condominium unit and signed a Condominium Home Addendum containing a delayed occupancy warranty.

Occupancy was delayed by 88 days, entitling the purchaser to $7,500 in compensation.

The father directed the vendor to transfer title to the Appellant on closing.

The Appellant subsequently sold the unit and then submitted a claim to Tarion for the delayed occupancy compensation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that the Appellant was not entitled to the compensation, finding that if the warranty was personal, it required a formal assignment from the father, which was absent; if it ran with the land, the claim should have been made while she owned the property or by the subsequent owner.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Registrar brought a motion to quash the Appellant's appeal of a proposal to refuse his registration under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Registrar argued that the appeal was an abuse of process because a different panel of the Tribunal had recently refused the Appellant's registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, based on similar statutory grounds regarding past conduct and integrity.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the ultimate issues under the two legislative schemes are distinct.

The Tribunal held that the Appellant was entitled to a hearing to present new evidence and propose conditions specific to the real estate industry.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to review its application for an outdoor liquor licence after a neighbouring resident objected.

The neighbour raised concerns about potential noise, unruly patrons, and alleged non-compliance with municipal by-laws.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant had met all municipal and building requirements and that the neighbour's concerns about noise and unruly behaviour were speculative and not supported by objective evidence.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the outdoor liquor licence subject to conditions on operating hours.

The Appellant's request for costs was denied.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

His previous application was refused in 2013 after the Tribunal found he had committed theft against a former employer and made false statements on his application.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant's five years of incident-free employment at dealerships handling cash and expensive inventory constituted a material change in circumstances, allowing him to reapply under section 12 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act 2002.

The Tribunal further found that his past conduct no longer afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and ordered the Registrar to register him subject to conditions.

The Appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing a first-year warranty claim for foundation leaks.

The Appellant argued that the builder failed to install dampproofing and drainage layers to ground level, contrary to the Ontario Building Code.

Tarion and the builder argued the claim was invalid because it was originally characterized as a lack of 'waterproofing' and that the installation met the functional intent of the Code.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the defect was sufficiently identified within the warranty period and that terminating the materials below ground level violated the Code and caused leaks.

Tarion was ordered to ensure the necessary repairs are completed.

The appellant licensee appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $8,000 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for contraventions of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

Inspectors observed four intoxicated patrons on the premises, two of whom were served alcohol while intoxicated.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the licensee permitted drunkenness and sold liquor to intoxicated persons, confirming the monetary penalty in full.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her son drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant filed her appeal late but was granted an extension of time.

On the merits, the appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment, finding the appellant had access to alternative transportation and failed to demonstrate that the financial loss was immediate, significant, and lasting.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son, a suspended driver, took control of the vehicle from his girlfriend, who had initially taken it without permission.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had put strict safeguards in place to prevent his son from accessing the vehicle and had not consented to its use.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act at the time of detention and ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.