OLAT 2017

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles after he voluntarily admitted himself to a hospital for alcohol dependence.

The appellant appealed the suspension.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had abstained from alcohol for over six months, completed treatment programs, and had the support of his doctors and family.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's alcohol addiction was no longer likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 60 days, alleging the appellant permitted drunkenness on its premises contrary to s. 45(1) of Regulation 719/90.

A regular patron was served alcohol, became intoxicated, and was asked to leave.

Staff made attempts to help him get home, which he refused.

The patron was found dead in the snow three days later.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's staff took reasonable steps to ensure the patron's safe departure once it became apparent he was intoxicated.

The Tribunal held that the legislation does not impose an enduring obligation on a licensee to ensure a patron arrives home safely, nor does it require staff to put themselves in danger.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposed suspension.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship.

She claimed she needed the vehicle for work, transporting her pregnant daughter to medical appointments, and taking her son to school and sports.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternative transportation options available, such as rides from coworkers, cabs, buses, and coaches.

Because alternatives existed, the exceptional hardship criteria under the Highway Traffic Act and O. Reg. 631/98 were not met.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence following a medical report of alcohol dependence and a suspected alcohol withdrawal seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed medical records showing persistently elevated liver enzymes and hospital admissions related to alcohol use.

The appellant refused to provide updated biochemical test results to prove abstinence or reduced consumption.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal found that the appellant is addicted to alcohol to an extent that significantly impairs her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.

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

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days after inspectors found a severely intoxicated patron vomiting and unresponsive at the appellant's karaoke bar.

The appellant appealed, arguing it was in the process of removing the patron safely.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for permitting drunkenness and found that the appellant knew the patron was intoxicated but failed to remove him safely within a reasonable period of time.

Given the patron's medical distress, the Tribunal noted that calling an ambulance would have been the appropriate response rather than relying on an Uber or the patron's friends.

The Tribunal found the appellant liable and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The parties reached a settlement and applied to have the matter disposed of on consent without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal ordered that the matter be concluded without a hearing on the agreed terms, which included conditions that the appellants comply with all applicable laws and that specific family members have no involvement in the operation of the dealership without prior approval.

The appellants appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle after their son allowed an acquaintance, whose licence was suspended, to drive it.

The appellants argued their son exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the son did not exercise due diligence because he failed to ask to see the driver's licence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellants had a second vehicle and access to public transportation.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

At the start of the hearing, the appellant withdrew his appeal, stating he intended to arrange a driving assessment and submit it to the Ministry for review before potentially bringing a fresh appeal.

The Tribunal concluded the proceeding and ordered the file closed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his motor vehicle inspection station (MVIS) licence.

The Director alleged the appellant made false statements on his application and breached the Highway Traffic Act during operations.

The Tribunal found that the appellant submitted a fabricated zoning letter, forged his mechanic's signature on the application and numerous inspection certificates, and failed to maintain required records.

Concluding that the appellant was indifferent to his statutory obligations and posed a risk to public safety, the Tribunal directed the Director to carry out the revocation.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's landlord drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment because she had not consented to her landlord driving it.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence credible and concluded the vehicle was taken without her express or implied consent.

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

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated IRBs on April 15, 2014.

The Tribunal first determined that the application was not statute-barred, as the applicant was caught in the transition period between FSCO and the LAT.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility, noting documentary evidence that he had returned to work as a superintendent for two different employers during the period he claimed to be substantially unable to work.

Relying on the insurer's expert assessments and the applicant's employment records, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a case conference order regarding disclosure obligations in an accident benefits dispute.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to include documents the respondent consented to produce and that the order requiring her to produce medical records violated procedural fairness and was based on an error of law.

The Executive Chair varied the order to include the consented disclosure but dismissed the remainder of the request, finding the applicant had sufficient notice that disclosure would be discussed and that the Tribunal did not err in its statement of the test for attendant care benefits.

The applicant sought payment for a treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plan, arguing the injuries fell under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the respondent failed to provide notice of its refusal within the required 10 business days under section 38(8) of the Schedule, prohibiting it from relying on the MIG.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for the treatment plan because the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatment was reasonable and necessary for his accident-related injuries, as the plan appeared to target an unrelated fractured humerus sustained in a subsequent fall.

The applicant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits based on insurer examinations concluding the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The Tribunal found the applicant's ongoing pain and psychological impairments continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, entitling her to non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal also determined the reasonable and necessary quantum of attendant care benefits and ordered a 5 percent award against the insurer for unreasonably delaying payment of medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming costs for an orthopedic assessment and a treatment plan for physiotherapy and massage.

The respondent insurer denied the claims based on an insurer's examination (IE) by an orthopedic surgeon, who concluded the treatments were not reasonable or necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, and accepted the respondent's IE report.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and various medical benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish entitlement to income replacement benefits, as he returned to work full-time and his business suffered no economic loss.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from psychological impairments, chronic pain syndrome, or post-concussion syndrome that would remove him from the MIG.

Consequently, the application for benefits was denied.

The applicant, a 31-year-old homemaker and mother, suffered serious physical and psychological injuries in a motor vehicle accident.

She applied for non-earner benefits, which the respondent insurer terminated.

The Tribunal applied the Heath test to determine if the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Finding the applicant and her treating practitioners credible, and placing limited weight on the insurer's assessors, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's pain and psychological impairments continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, particularly caregiving and homemaking.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the non-earner benefits and interest on overdue amounts.

The applicant withdrew his application for statutory accident benefits on the eve of the scheduled hearing.

The respondent brought a motion for costs, arguing that the applicant's late withdrawal and the lack of merit in the claim constituted unreasonable conduct.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the withdrawal of an application alone, despite causing inconvenience and expense, does not meet the threshold of unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct required for a costs award under Rule 19.1.

The applicant filed a stand-alone application seeking costs for a prior, closed application that had settled before the hearing.

The respondent opposed and sought its own costs, arguing the applicant's new application was frivolous and vexatious.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 19 to award costs for conduct in a prior proceeding.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request for costs, as the applicant's conduct did not meet the high threshold for bad faith given the novelty of the Tribunal's processes.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a case conference order to add a newly denied treatment plan for chronic pain as an issue in dispute for an upcoming hearing.

The respondent opposed, arguing a separate application was required.

The Adjudicator granted the motion, finding that adding the issue would save time and resources, avoid unnecessary case conferences, and ensure a fair and expeditious resolution, as the new issue involved the same parties and accident.