OLAT 2017

The applicant, who was 9 years old at the time of the motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits for social worker support, an in-home occupational therapy assessment, and travel costs for a service provider.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims, finding that the social worker support duplicated an already approved psychological treatment plan, and the in-home assessment was not reasonable and necessary given the applicant's functional independence.

The Tribunal also held that the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule does not mandate insurers to pay for the travel expenses of service providers.

The appellant, Dellfina Homes Inc., appealed a proposal by the Registrar under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to refuse its registration as a builder.

The Registrar's refusal was based on the appellant's failure to provide a requested security deposit and the past conduct of its principal, John Custodio, which included acting as an unregistered builder and failing to enroll homes.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant could reasonably be expected to be financially responsible, the past conduct of its principal afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant would not carry on its undertakings in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

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

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs).

The insurer suspended and later terminated the benefits, arguing the applicant failed to provide requested financial documentation under s. 33 of the Schedule and no longer met the disability test.

The Tribunal found that the applicant breached s. 33 without a reasonable explanation, disentitling her to benefits for the period of non-compliance.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment as a restaurant owner, relying on the insurer's multidisciplinary assessments.

The application and request for costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, while the insurer sought repayment of IRBs previously paid.

The Tribunal found that issue estoppel did not bar the application despite a prior FSCO decision.

However, the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment within 104 weeks of the accident, disentitling her to IRBs.

The Tribunal also dismissed the insurer's claim for repayment, finding the IRBs were paid as a strategic decision rather than in error, and that the insurer was estopped from seeking repayment.

Claims for interest, a special award, and costs were all dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $16,325.12 in Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) paid to the respondent following a motor vehicle accident.

The overpayment occurred because the respondent received retroactive Long Term Disability benefits from Manulife, which are deductible from IRBs under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent acknowledged liability to repay but argued the insurer was limited to collecting the overpayment by reducing subsequent IRB payments.

The Tribunal found that the insurer was not obligated to use the claw-back provisions and ordered the respondent to repay the full amount plus interest.

The applicant, a tow truck driver, sought statutory accident benefits after sustaining injuries while opening a garage bay door at a mechanic's shop.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that the use of the tow truck had ended prior to the incident and did not directly cause the impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was not involved in an accident and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) cap, claiming chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving entitlement beyond the cap.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's psychological evidence, which was based solely on a telephone interview, and preferred the respondent's in-person psychological assessment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered predominantly minor injuries and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal order that allowed the applicant to summons the claims adjuster who handled the disputed claim.

The insurer argued it should have received a copy of the motion materials and an opportunity to respond.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that Rules 8 and 4.3 of the Tribunal's Common Rules of Practice & Procedure permitted the applicant to request the summons on an ex parte basis.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her claims for an income replacement benefit and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal ignored medical evidence of pre-existing conditions that would take her outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), improperly admitted surveillance evidence, and breached procedural fairness by denying an in-person hearing and a request to record the proceedings.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no error in the Tribunal's conclusion that there was no compelling evidence the pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery under the MIG, and no breach of procedural fairness.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claim for a psychological Treatment and Assessment Plan costing $3,588.18 following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made several errors of fact and law, including mischaracterizing the plan as an assessment rather than treatment, improperly weighing medical evidence from various doctors, and failing to consider the remedial nature of the Schedule.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal's underlying conclusion that the applicant did not suffer from a psychological condition requiring the claimed expense applied equally to both assessment and treatment.

The Chair also found no error in the Tribunal's weighing of the medical and affidavit evidence, nor any breach of procedural fairness.

The appellants appealed Tarion's denial of their year-end statutory warranty claim for defects in their finished basement, specifically gaps between flooring and baseboards and noise in the ceiling.

The Tribunal found that gaps exceeding 3 mm in the closet area were covered by the warranty and ordered Tarion to pay $429.84 for repairs.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the remaining gaps and ceiling noise, finding the appellants failed to prove these issues fell below industry standards or resulted from defective workmanship or materials.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a motor vehicle collision and reports of diabetes and hypoglycemia.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's type 1 diabetes was well-controlled and that the single hypoglycemic episode at the time of the collision did not constitute a severe episode requiring a six-month suspension under the CCMTA Medical Standards.

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's truck was impounded for 45 days after his nephew was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the truck had been stolen by his nephew.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence not credible, noting the nephew had frequent access to the truck and a history of driving the appellant's vehicles, resulting in previous impoundments.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was not stolen and confirmed the Registrar's decision to impound the truck.

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

The Registrar cited a history of non-compliance, including late and deficient financial statements, failure to maintain minimum working capital, trust accounting irregularities, and advertising violations.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing after multiple adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's repeated failures to meet regulatory requirements demonstrated un-governability and financial irresponsibility.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the appellant's licence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) refusing his claim for $8,331 from the Travel Industry Compensation Fund following the failure of a travel agent.

The appellant claimed the funds were a deposit for a future trip to Cuba, but the evidence presented significant discrepancies regarding the nature of the travel services purchased.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide credible and reliable evidence that the payment was for a travel service, as required by the Regulation, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant bus company appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order of its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to an unsatisfactory safety record.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant's history of non-compliance provided reason to believe it would not operate safely, its safety violation rate had improved since a previous 30-day suspension.

The Tribunal set aside the cancellation order but imposed a condition limiting the appellant's fleet to its current size of four vehicles for a period of 24 months to allow it a further opportunity to demonstrate safe operation.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship because he needed it for medical appointments for himself and his grandparents.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as family members had been providing transportation and accessible taxis were available.

Since alternatives existed, the Tribunal could not consider financial hardship, and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after an apprentice at an auto repair shop drove it without permission while his licence was suspended.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under s. 50.2(3)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen.

The Tribunal found that taking a vehicle without consent for a joyride constitutes "stolen" under the Act, even if the driver intended to return it.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove a condition on its liquor licence requiring two security personnel on Friday and Saturday nights.

The applicant argued that a 70% decrease in business volume over the past five years and a declining local population constituted a change in circumstances.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario took no position.

The Tribunal found that the change in circumstances warranted the removal of the condition and granted the application.

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

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued an order and notice of intent to dismiss the appeal as abandoned, giving the appellant an opportunity to provide written submissions explaining his absence.