OLAT 2016

The appellant's motor vehicle was impounded for 45 days after his grandson was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship, arguing he needed the vehicle for medical appointments and errands due to severe arthritis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives available, such as relying on his grandson, his brother, or taking a taxi, and therefore failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship.

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 appellant, a single mother, had allowed a friend to drive her vehicle without knowing his licence was suspended for life due to a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate she had investigated every reasonable option to mitigate her loss, such as renting a vehicle or using taxis, and therefore did not meet the strict criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after she allowed her boyfriend to drive it despite knowing his licence was suspended.

She argued she felt ill and asked him to drive, claiming due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding she did not exercise due diligence because she knew of the suspension.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as she had reasonable alternatives to the vehicle for her college visits and job search, and the impoundment did not pose a threat to health or safety.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship.

The vehicle, a specialized refrigerated van used to transport fresh fish, was impounded after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative vehicle available to comply with food safety regulations and that the business was suffering an immediate and significant financial loss of $12,000 per week.

Concluding that the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after it was driven by a suspended driver.

She argued she exercised due diligence by asking the driver if he had a licence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her medical conditions and need to transport her autistic children.

The Tribunal found she did not exercise due diligence because she failed to physically check the driver's licence.

However, the Tribunal ordered the vehicle released on the basis of exceptional hardship, finding that the appellant had no reasonable alternative transportation and the impoundment posed a threat to her health and her children's well-being.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle after a former co-worker drove it while suspended.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to actively inquire about the driver's licence status and that reasonable alternatives to the vehicle existed, such as public transportation, negating the claim of exceptional hardship.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB) until the respondent insurer terminated it, claiming the applicant could return to work.

The applicant sought reinstatement of the IRB, arguing he was physically and psychologically incapable of working.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries had healed, the accident materially worsened his pre-existing depression and caused severe post-traumatic stress disorder.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating psychologists over the insurer's assessor, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding IRB amounts with interest.

The Applicant sought costs and an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 after the Insurer approved a treatment plan prior to the case conference.

The Applicant alleged the Insurer acted in bad faith and unreasonably delayed payment by refusing to pay a disbursement fee for medical records.

The Insurer also sought costs, arguing the Applicant's conduct was frivolous and vexatious.

The Tribunal dismissed both costs requests, finding neither party's conduct during the proceeding met the threshold under Rule 19.1.

The Tribunal also denied the Applicant's request for an award, concluding the Insurer acted reasonably in waiting for updated medical records before approving the treatment plan.

The insurer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the applicant's claim for attendant care benefits was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The insurer had sent Explanation of Benefits forms stating the applicant did not qualify for attendant care benefits under the Minor Injury Guideline before the applicant had submitted an Assessment of Attendant Care Needs form.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that a limitation period cannot begin to run before a benefit is actually claimed.

Furthermore, the language used in the insurer's forms stating there was 'no coverage' was not a clear and unequivocal denial sufficient to trigger the limitation period.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing the applicant failed to submit a completed disability certificate because her doctor checked a box indicating she did not meet the test for the benefit.

The Tribunal dismissed the insurer's motion, finding that the applicant had clearly communicated her intention to apply for the benefit through the submitted forms, and prioritizing form over substance would violate the consumer protection purpose of the legislation.

The matter was permitted to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRB).

The insurer terminated the benefits, arguing the applicant did not meet the test for entitlement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was employed as a school bus driver at the time of the accident and that the accident caused her right shoulder and back pain.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's physiatrist over the insurer's, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's physical limitations rendered her substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment, specifically driving a school bus for extended periods.

The applicant was awarded a weekly IRB of $292.46.

The applicant sought dispute resolution for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a medical benefit of $1,747.20 and arguing their injury fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline.

The adjudicator dismissed the appeal entirely because the applicant failed to submit any evidence to support their claims, despite being given an extension to do so.

The Applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated the benefits after the Applicant failed to attend a scheduled insurer's examination.

The Applicant argued he did not receive the notice because he was moving between various addiction treatment facilities at the time.

The Tribunal found the Applicant's evidence credible and concluded he had a reasonable explanation for his non-attendance.

The insurer was ordered to pay the withheld non-earner benefits for the period of non-compliance.

The Applicant sought both non-earner benefits and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the Applicant was required to elect one benefit and that she had qualified for income replacement benefits, barring her from non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal found that the insurer failed to provide the required notice of election under s. 35(1) of the Schedule when it became aware the Applicant was self-employed.

As no election was provided, the Applicant is entitled to seek both benefits at the hearing, though she cannot recover both concurrently.

The Applicant sought payment for various home repairs, cleaning services, and the cost difference for a dishwasher as rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that home repairs can qualify as 'home modifications' under section 16(3)(i) if they serve a rehabilitative purpose.

The Tribunal ordered payment for the repair of a basement step, installation of a handrail, and repair of loose tiles, as these addressed hazards exacerbated by the Applicant's accident-related impairments.

Claims for cleaning services, powder room repairs, and the dishwasher cost difference were dismissed.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $2,233.46 for chiropractic treatment and massage therapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurance company denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended they suffered from cervical radiculopathy, which falls outside the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving their injuries fell outside the MIG, as their medical evidence lacked sufficient objective testing and persuasive analysis to support a diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy.

The Tribunal preferred the insurance company's medical assessment, which diagnosed a whiplash injury.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment, sought payment for mileage expenses incurred by his service providers travelling to his home for treatment.

The insurer denied the mileage claims, arguing the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) and related Guidelines do not require payment for provider travel costs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal agreed with the insurer, finding that while the SABS explicitly covers transportation expenses for insured persons and their aides, it does not mandate payment for service provider mileage.

The application for mileage expenses was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits and filed an application for dispute resolution after the insurer denied a treatment plan.

Prior to the case conference, the insurer approved the treatment plan, but the applicant sought costs for preparing the application.

The Tribunal held a preliminary issue hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction to consider the costs request after the main issue was resolved.

The Tribunal found that the proceeding had not ended because the application was not withdrawn and the costs issue remained outstanding, concluding it had jurisdiction to consider the request under Rule 19.1.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits and Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) beyond what the insurer approved.

The insurer capped medical benefits at $3,500 under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and terminated IRB, arguing the applicant no longer suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and that she failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition or chronic pain syndrome that would warrant exceeding the MIG cap.

Furthermore, relying on the insurer's multidisciplinary assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant was capable of performing the essential tasks of her employment and dismissed the claim for IRB.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment beyond the $3,500 limit set by the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant bore the onus of proving her injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded that the medical evidence provided was insufficient to establish that a pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

The application for the $249.95 balance for physiotherapy was dismissed.