OLAT 2018

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a pre-existing left knee injury and a lip laceration took her out of the MIG, and that the respondent failed to provide sufficient reasons for denial within the required timelines under section 38 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent complied with section 38, the injuries were predominantly minor, and the applicant failed to establish that her pre-existing condition would prevent maximal recovery.

The treatment plan was deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found the applicant entitled to Non-Earner Benefits (NEBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued that the Tribunal failed to consider evidence of the applicant's ability to participate in pre-accident activities, improperly focused on only two areas of her life, and ignored her pre-existing psychological trauma.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal properly applied the legal test, weighed the evidence, and provided sufficient reasons for its conclusion that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care, medical, and rehabilitation expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims.

The claim for attendant care benefits was denied because the applicant's mother, a non-professional provider, failed to prove she sustained an economic loss.

Claims for optometric services and eyewear were denied for lack of causation.

Transportation expenses for taxis to school were not authorized under the Schedule, and a claim for laser treatment was denied because no treatment plan had been submitted.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for statutory accident benefits as time-barred.

The applicant argued that the two-year limitation period did not start to run until she was deemed catastrophically impaired and that the doctrine of discoverability applied.

The Executive Chair denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the request was filed late without an acceptable excuse.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish any significant error of law or fact in the Tribunal's original decision regarding the limitation period, the doctrine of discoverability, or the refusal to allow an expert witness.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plan on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the insurer failed to provide notice of its denial within the required 10 business days under section 38(8) of the Schedule, and was therefore prohibited from relying on the MIG limit.

However, the Tribunal ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed psychological treatment was reasonable and necessary, as the objective medical evidence did not support a significant psychological impairment.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were minor and subject to the MIG funding limit, as there was no compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition that would preclude recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion in writing to add a claim for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 to the issues in dispute and to issue a summons for the handling adjuster to testify at the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the bar to add a special award is very low and the applicant established a potential basis for the claim.

The Tribunal also ordered the issuance of a summons for the adjuster, noting that her anticipated evidence regarding the continued assessment of the file was relevant to the newly added special award issue.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the $3,500 funding limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his physical or psychological injuries fell outside the MIG, and that his chronic pain symptoms were clinically associated sequelae to his minor injuries.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found that the Minor Injury Guideline did not apply due to the insurer's failure to provide proper notice under subsection 38(8) of the Schedule.

However, the applicant's claims for attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, and chronic pain treatments were dismissed as the expenses were either not incurred or not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for assistive devices and an attendant care assessment due to procedural breaches, and granted a 50% special award under O. Reg. 664 for unreasonably withholding payments.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a hair salon and restaurant.

Local residents and community associations objected, raising concerns about noise, crime, and the proliferation of nightclubs in the area.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest, as the concerns related to the general area rather than the specific establishment.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence, subject to conditions restricting patio music after 9:00 p.m. and requiring signage asking patrons to respect neighbours.

Following a hearing regarding a liquor licence application, the appellant brought a motion for costs against two community groups that had been granted added party status.

The appellant argued the added parties' conduct was unreasonable, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the conduct of all parties was respectful throughout the proceeding and that advocating for a position, even erroneously, does not constitute unreasonable conduct under Rule 19.

The Tribunal emphasized that significant leeway must be given to self-represented parties to maintain accessibility and fairness.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke a Licence and an immediate suspension order issued by the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing.

The Registrar alleged the licensee obstructed and assaulted a liquor inspector, permitted a patron to remove liquor from the premises, and permitted unlawful gambling (a football pool) on the premises.

The Tribunal found that the licensee's manager aggressively confronted and grabbed an inspector, failed to prevent a patron from leaving with alcohol, and ran an illegal football pool that did not pay out 100% of proceeds.

The Tribunal concluded the licensee's conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

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

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims regarding their custom-built home.

The primary issue was the basement ceiling height, which the appellants expected to be 9 feet based on marketing materials, but was built at an average of 7'5".

The Tribunal found that because the ceiling height was not specified in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, it was not a warranted item and could not be treated as a substitution under the Act.

The Tribunal also dismissed the appellants' claims regarding interior and exterior finishes, electrical work, and the roof line, finding that the appellants failed to meet their burden of proving a breach of warranty or defective materials.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her son's friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that no due diligence was exercised to verify the driver's licence status, and that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because reasonable alternative transportation options were available.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his Class A driver's licence to a Class G licence following a motor vehicle accident.

The police report indicated the appellant stated he had blacked out before leaving the roadway, though the appellant denied this at the hearing.

Medical evidence showed possible causes for syncope, including atrial fibrillation and white matter disease.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found it probable that the appellant experienced a loss of consciousness and confirmed the licence downgrade, citing the unacceptable level of risk in operating a commercial vehicle until further medical follow-up is completed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

His previous registration was revoked in 2014 due to professional misconduct.

Under section 17 of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, the appellant was required to demonstrate a material change in circumstances to reapply.

While the Tribunal accepted evidence from the appellant's family and a psychologist that he had made positive personal and lifestyle changes, it found this insufficient to prove he could transfer these changes to a high-pressure real estate work environment.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension under section 50.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant argued mistaken identity on the philosophical basis that he was not the same man he was five years ago, but admitted he was the person who provided the breath sample and whose licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the only applicable statutory ground for appeal was mistaken identity in the literal sense.

Because the appellant admitted his identity, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial class driver's licence to a general Class 'G' licence due to the presence of an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD).

The appellant had undergone quadruple bypass surgery and the ICD was implanted for secondary protection, but his cardiologist and family doctor confirmed it was no longer medically required and had never fired.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence from the appellant's treating physicians more compelling than the Ministry's reviewing doctor.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's medical condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and set aside the Minister's decision.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 30 days.

The appellant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, prompting the Tribunal to issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the appeal for abandonment.

The appellant's new counsel subsequently advised that the failure to appear was due to a scheduling error by former counsel and requested a case conference.

With the consent of the Registrar, the Tribunal ordered that the appeal not be dismissed and directed the parties to participate in a case conference.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration as a debt collector under the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act.

The Registrar refused the application because the appellant failed to disclose outstanding criminal charges on his application form.

The Tribunal found that the appellant made an unintentional mistake on the application and did not knowingly provide false information.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the alleged criminal conduct occurred.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to grant the registration, subject to a condition that the appellant immediately disclose any future conviction on the outstanding charges.