OLAT 2018

The appellant brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of her appeal from the Registrar's decision refusing to grant her registration under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The appellant argued that an adjournment was necessary to review a recently obtained clinical report and newly disclosed FSCO reports.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that proceeding would risk prejudice and unfairness to the appellant, and noting there was no risk to the public as the appellant was not currently engaged in real estate dealings.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Registrar's refusal was based on the appellant's extensive criminal record spanning 13 years, which included convictions for drug trafficking, assault, and weapons offences.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for the belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal concluded that conditions were not an appropriate alternative to refusal and ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for work and to care for her father.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she was able to get rides to work and use public transit, and her father's needs were being met.

As the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant licensee applied to remove two conditions from its liquor licence, which required security guards at entrances and exits and signs advising patrons not to loiter.

The conditions were originally imposed to address a public objection when the establishment operated as a nightclub.

The applicant demonstrated a change in circumstances, noting it now operates as a full-service restaurant with food sales exceeding 70%.

The Registrar took no position and reported no objections or adverse disciplinary history.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the conditions removed.

Yongehurst Distillery Corp. brought a motion for costs against two added parties (objectors) following a successful hearing to review its liquor licence application.

Yongehurst alleged the added parties acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith by delaying proceedings, failing to comply with disclosure orders, refusing to settle, and presenting incomplete evidence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the proceedings were lengthy and caused Yongehurst financial hardship, the added parties' conduct did not rise to the level required to justify a costs award under Rule 19.1.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a Class G licence following a single, unprovoked seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant did suffer from a physical condition that could recur and that it was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a commercial vehicle.

The Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision, upholding the requirement that the appellant remain seizure-free for 12 months before being eligible to regain his commercial licence.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a Medical Condition Report.

The report was filed after the appellant was found unconscious in his vehicle following a collision, having ingested cocaine.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's history of addiction and inability to resist drugs constituted a mental condition of drug use and abuse.

Given his driving record and poor judgment in consuming drugs before driving, the Tribunal concluded this condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The suspension was confirmed.

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

The Registrar issued multiple letters with varying and escalating conditions for reinstatement, culminating in a requirement for twelve months of abstinence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant credible and motivated to maintain sobriety.

The Tribunal modified the Registrar's decision, substituting less onerous conditions for reinstatement, including six months of abstinence, a satisfactory biomedical marker report, and physician support.

The appellant applied for registration as a gaming supplier under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the registration based on the past conduct of the appellant's director, which included numerous Highway Traffic Act convictions, a criminal charge for assault, and convictions for failing to comply with court orders.

The director also failed to disclose these offences in the application materials and provided false information during an interview.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the director's past conduct and lack of candour provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act in accordance with the law, honesty, and integrity.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the refusal.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following two suicide attempts and a diagnosis of major depressive disorder.

The appellant appealed the suspension.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant suffered from a depressive illness, he had achieved stability, returned to work, and was compliant with treatment.

Relying on strong support from the appellant's psychiatrist and the lack of evidence linking the illness to driving safety, the Tribunal concluded the condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was set aside.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles denying his eligibility for the Class G vision waiver program because his driver's licence was suspended for impaired driving within the preceding five years.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that under the Highway Traffic Act and O. Reg. 340/94, decisions made by the Minister under sub-clause 32(5)(b)(ii) regarding vision waiver eligibility are not appealable to the Tribunal.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she had to resign from her new job due to lack of transportation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that public transit was a reasonable alternative that the appellant chose not to use, and therefore she failed to meet the burden of proving exceptional hardship.

The homeowners appealed Tarion's decision to deny their claim under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Tarion brought a motion to add the builder, Charleston Homes Ltd., as a party to the appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Tarion failed to provide specific evidence demonstrating that the builder had a significant interest in the proceeding.

The Tribunal emphasized that appeals under the Act are not meant to be procedurally complex for homeowners, and builders should only be added when their substantive rights are directly affected.

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

The insurer argued the application was barred by the two-year limitation period, relying on an Explanation of Benefits (EOB) letter sent in July 2013.

The Tribunal found that the insurer breached its duty of good faith by failing to provide the required benefits information package.

Furthermore, the EOB letter did not constitute a clear and unequivocal denial because the applicant had not yet elected a specific benefit and the insurer's stated reason for denial was incorrect.

As a result, the limitation period was not triggered, and the applicant was permitted to proceed with her claim.

The applicant sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming that his daily use of marijuana to control anxiety and pain prevented him from working.

The respondent had terminated IRBs based on insurer's examinations and sought repayment of an overpayment, alleging wilful misrepresentation of the applicant's employment status.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his marijuana dependency or other impairments resulted in a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's claim for repayment, finding no wilful misrepresentation and noting the respondent failed to provide notice within the 12-month limitation period.

Claims for a special award and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, chiropractic services, and an orthopaedic assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant suffered only soft tissue injuries and had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal found the treatment plans reasonable and necessary, noting the accident aggravated the applicant's pre-existing chronic pain and arthritis, and accepting the diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome by the applicant's orthopaedic expert.

The Tribunal awarded the medical benefits and the cost of the orthopaedic assessment (capped at $2,000 plus HST), but denied the cost of a redundant OCF-3 and a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664.

The applicant sought a housekeeping and home maintenance benefit of $8,800 following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her sister provided these services.

While the Tribunal found the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the tasks, it dismissed the claim because the applicant failed to prove her sister sustained an economic loss as required by section 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request for costs to reimburse her for obtaining her employment file, finding the respondent's request for the file was reasonable to assess her functional abilities.

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

The insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated significant improvement from previous similar treatments and that multiple assessors recommended a chronic pain program instead of continued passive, facility-based care.

The Tribunal concluded the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) after the respondent terminated them.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments caused by the accident, rendering her substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a general labourer.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the IRBs and interest on overdue amounts.

The applicant's claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was dismissed, as the respondent's initial denial of treatment plans was not unreasonable given the medical evidence available at the time.

The respondent insurer brought a preliminary issue seeking to dismiss the applicant's claim for income replacement benefits as statute-barred.

The insurer argued that it sent a letter terminating benefits more than two years before the application was commenced.

The applicant and his counsel denied receiving the termination letter.

The adjudicator applied the discoverability principle and found that the limitation period began to run when the applicant's counsel received a subsequent letter from the insurer indicating that benefits had been stopped.

Based on this date of discoverability, the application was commenced within the two-year limitation period.

The insurer's motion to dismiss was denied, and its request for expenses was dismissed.