OLAT 2017

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on a medical condition report indicating an unstable mental or emotional illness following an emergency room visit for self-harm.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's borderline personality disorder, which caused impulsive and reckless behaviour when dysregulated, was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, particularly given a prior incident where she purposely drove into a hydro pole.

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

The Registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority ordered the revocation of the appellant's licence to operate a retirement home due to financial mismanagement and allegations of elder financial abuse.

The appellant appealed the order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was no longer competent to operate the home responsibly, having accumulated over $900,000 in debt and defaulted on mortgages and taxes.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the appellant financially abused a vulnerable resident by repeatedly soliciting interest-free loans.

The Tribunal rescinded the Registrar's immediate order but substituted its own decision directing the revocation of the licence with a delayed effective date to allow the first mortgagee to assume operations and ensure a smooth transition for the residents.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his driver's licence from Class A to Class G following a heart attack and the implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

The Registrar suspended his licence and later reinstated it to Class G, but determined he was ineligible for a commercial licence based on the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the ICD was implanted as secondary prophylaxis for ventricular fibrillation, which under the CCMTA standards renders a driver ineligible for a commercial licence.

The Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision, finding the appellant has a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a Class A vehicle safely.

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by checking the employee's abstract upon hiring and claimed exceptional hardship due to the need to outsource towing work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the due diligence claim as the Ministry abstract showed active suspensions.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the company successfully outsourced the work, demonstrating an alternative to the impounded vehicle existed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for life.

She argued the vehicle was stolen by her son and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the vehicle was stolen, as the son had access to the keys and stated he was running an errand for her.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the appellant had successfully relied on family members for transportation, meaning there was an alternative to the impounded vehicle.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his commercial driver's licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act due to a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

The Registrar relied on a medical report indicating the appellant experienced delusions while driving.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's condition had stabilized since starting a new medication regimen, and he was compliant with treatment.

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

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse to renew its registration as a vendor/builder under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Registrar alleged the Appellant lacked sufficient technical competence due to a poor customer service record and a high rate of chargeable conciliations, and lacked financial responsibility due to failing to provide financial statements and pay outstanding fees.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant had a record of breaches of warranties, lacked technical competence to consistently perform warranties, and could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar's proposal to refuse renewal was upheld.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits and a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence to remove him from the MIG.

As the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the physiotherapy claim was denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, preferring the detailed reports of the respondent's assessors over the applicant's initial disability certificate.

The respondent's claim for costs was dismissed.

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

Prior to a scheduled case conference, the applicant withdrew the appeal application.

The respondent subsequently brought a motion for costs, alleging the applicant acted frivolously, vexatiously, and in bad faith by misrepresenting his employment status.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent's evidence, which relied entirely on hearsay from an unidentified confidential source, was unreliable and insufficient to establish bad faith or unreasonable conduct under Rule 19.1.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of income replacement benefits and accountant fees from the respondent, alleging wilful misrepresentation.

The respondent did not participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide evidence that it had given the respondent notice of the repayment amount, which is a mandatory requirement under section 52 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a digital motion x-ray exam, assessments, and transportation expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to prove the digital x-ray and assessments were reasonable and necessary, relying instead on the respondent's insurer examinations which found no accident-related abnormalities.

The claim for transportation expenses was denied because the applicant failed to submit a required treatment plan.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied as there was no evidence of unreasonable or bad faith conduct by the applicant.

The respondent requested costs following the dismissal of the applicant's request for reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The respondent argued that the applicant's reconsideration request was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Executive Chair found that while the applicant's arguments for reconsideration were not persuasive, they did not meet the threshold of being vexatious or frivolous under Rule 19.

The request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her claim for attendant care benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by holding a written hearing and erred in its causation analysis by applying the 'but for' test instead of the 'material contribution' test.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant had acquiesced to the written hearing format and failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish causation under either legal test.

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

The applicant failed to attend the initial case conference and was warned that failure to attend the reconvened case conference would result in the appeal being dismissed as abandoned.

Despite attempts by counsel to contact the applicant, he failed to attend the second case conference.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the applicant's repeated absence and dismissed the appeal as abandoned pursuant to Rule 3.4 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which were denied by the respondent.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal but withdrew it at a Case Conference after the respondent raised her failure to attend an Insurer's Examination.

Hours later, the applicant filed a second application for the same issue.

She subsequently failed to attend a rescheduled Insurer's Examination and withdrew the second application at another Case Conference.

The respondent sought costs.

The Tribunal found the applicant's conduct in filing the second application to be frivolous, vexatious, and unreasonable, constituting an abuse of process.

The respondent was awarded $500 in costs.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied.

The applicant filed for mediation at FSCO, but the mediation did not take place and the file was closed.

The applicant subsequently filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal after the transition of dispute resolution from FSCO to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the application was statute-barred because it was filed beyond the two-year limitation period and outside the 90-day extension period following the closure of the FSCO mediation file.

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

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and required the applicant to attend insurer's examinations (IEs).

The applicant failed to attend multiple scheduled IEs over a nine-month period, later claiming the notices were non-compliant with the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's notices were sufficient and compliant, as they clearly stated the medical and other reasons for the IEs.

Consequently, the applicant was found to be in non-compliance with section 44 of the Schedule.

Pursuant to section 55, the application was dismissed and the Tribunal file closed.

The respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought an adjournment of a hearing regarding a catastrophic impairment determination because the respondent had only recently produced medical reports.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, arguing the late disclosure was caused by the applicant's own delay in providing her medical assessments.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant was entitled to prepare medical reports in reply to the respondent's assessors, and that a full hearing on the merits of the serious catastrophic impairment issue was necessary.

The hearing was adjourned to September 2017.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, non-earner benefits, medical benefits, and costs of examinations.

The Tribunal dismissed all claims.

The claim for attendant care benefits was denied as surveillance and the applicant's own statements showed he was independent in personal care.

The non-earner benefits claim was denied because the applicant failed to submit a Disability Certificate until the hearing.

The medical benefits and examination costs were denied as not reasonable and necessary, lacking sufficient medical evidence to support them.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.

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

The respondent denied the application on the basis that the applicant was a resident of Alberta.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant was a resident of Ontario under the Schedule.

Applying the holistic test for residency, the Tribunal found that the applicant maintained significant ties to Ontario, including a fiancé, friends, and a rented apartment, and that his stay in Alberta was temporary.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was a resident of Ontario and an insured person entitled to seek benefits.