OLAT 2018

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for physiotherapy, a chronic pain assessment, and psychological services under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, relying on its own medical assessors and questioning the credibility of the treatment providers.

The Tribunal found the clinical notes and records of the applicant's treating family physician and psychologist to be comprehensive and persuasive, establishing that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was awarded all disputed benefits with interest, but no costs were awarded to either party.

The insurer sought reconsideration of a preliminary issue order that precluded the insured from proceeding with a catastrophic impairment hearing until the insurer conducted two insurer examinations (IEs).

The order included a term allowing the IEs to proceed by paper review if the parties could not agree on conditions for in-person assessments.

The insurer argued this term violated natural justice by placing it at a disadvantage.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration, finding that the original adjudicator properly balanced the insurer's right to an IE against the potential harm to the insured, and that paper reviews are expressly permitted under the Schedule.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended he suffered psychological impairments removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological issues were not proven to be accident-related, keeping him within the MIG's $3,500 limit.

The requested psychological assessment was deemed reasonable and necessary but only payable up to the MIG limit, while the psychological treatment and a claim for a special award were denied.

The appellant requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for January 2019, citing a recent change in legal representation.

The hearing dates had previously been marked peremptory after three prior adjournments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the request, noting that the appellant had an obligation to retain counsel available for the peremptory dates and that further delay was not in the public interest.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson, and requested a hearing regarding an immediate temporary suspension order.

The Tribunal considered whether to extend the immediate suspension order until the conclusion of the hearing.

Finding that the appellants had continued to engage in conduct that harmed consumers, including failing to pay warranty providers and not paying off trade-in vehicle liens, the Tribunal concluded that the risk to the public was great.

The immediate suspension order was extended until the hearing is concluded.

Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion to add the builder, Geranium Homes, as a party to an appeal regarding a new home warranty claim for a defective kitchen floor.

The appellant homeowner and the builder consented to the motion.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the builder had a significant interest in the proceeding because the appellant sought $27,000 in floor replacement costs and made allegations that put the builder's reputation at risk.

The appellant requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal motion decision that found the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the appellant's arguments regarding the Registrar's conduct during settlement negotiations.

The appellant had argued that the Registrar's insistence on an 'all-or-nothing' settlement for two alleged liquor licence violations was an abuse of process and violated the Charter.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration request, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Registrar's conduct when determining whether to confirm or set aside a monetary penalty under the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act.

The Tribunal's order was varied to allow the appellant to make written submissions on these issues if the regulatory violations are proven at the hearing.

In an appeal regarding common element deficiencies in a condominium, the respondent warranty corporation brought a motion to add the builder as a party.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the builder had a significant interest in the proceeding because it provided warranty coverage, had been active in making repairs, and would be responsible for any payment ordered, which could amount to approximately $100,000.

The Registrar requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed an appeal rather than issuing a requested consent order.

The parties had reached a settlement where the corporate appellant would withdraw its application and the individual appellant would be registered as a salesperson with conditions.

The original Tribunal decision found the settlement fair but dismissed the appeal, reasoning an order was unnecessary.

On reconsideration, the Tribunal found that dismissing the appeal was a significant error of law, as it would allow the Registrar to carry out its original proposal to refuse registration.

The Tribunal varied the order and granted the consent order disposing of the proceeding on the terms of the settlement.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Revoke the appellant's travel agent registration due to working capital deficiencies and trust account issues.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

Prior to a hearing, the parties reached an agreement and signed Minutes of Settlement, confirming the appellant had corrected its working capital deficiency.

The Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, allowing the appellant to maintain its registration subject to strict financial reporting and compliance conditions.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision to revoke its liquor licence.

The revocation was based on findings that the appellant's acting manager assaulted and obstructed a liquor inspector, and that the establishment permitted the removal of liquor and unlawful gambling.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of law and fact.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no significant errors that would have altered the original decision, particularly given the serious public safety concerns raised by the manager's aggressive conduct toward the inspector.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a real estate broker based on past conduct.

Following a case conference, the parties reached a settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to suspend the appellant's registration for 28 weeks instead of revoking it, and attached conditions to his registration for five years, including a prohibition on acting as a broker of record and restrictions on mortgage referrals.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to refuse registration.

Following case conferences, the parties reached a settlement and requested that the minutes of settlement be incorporated into a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the proceedings be disposed of without a hearing, granting registration to the appellant as a general dealer and salesperson subject to extensive terms and conditions regarding compliance, premises, books and records, disclosure, and financial responsibility.

The applicant applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that restricted the hours and days of alcohol service.

The condition had originally been imposed due to public objections.

The applicant posted a placard regarding the removal, and no public objections were received.

The Registrar took no position.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances, noting the lack of public objections and the applicant's business needs, and ordered the condition removed.

The appellant applied under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act to remove conditions on its liquor licence, arguing a change in circumstances.

The conditions, which required security personnel and compliance with a 2002 settlement with the City of Mississauga, were originally imposed following public objections.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances, noting the premises are in an industrial area, there was a change in ownership and business model, and no public objections were received after notice was posted.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the conditions.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

Following a case conference, the parties reached a settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to register the appellant as a salesperson, subject to strict terms and conditions, including a two-year prohibition on applying to be a registered dealer or having signing authority for a dealer.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision directing the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The original refusal was based on the appellant's past conduct regarding a disappeared vehicle during his bankruptcy and a false statement on his application.

The appellant alleged numerous errors of fact and law in the Tribunal's decision.

The adjudicator found no significant errors of law or fact that would have likely led to a different decision and dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The appellant applied for a licence as a groom under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the application based on the appellant's past criminal convictions for violent offences and his failure to fully disclose them on his application.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct was caused by untreated or ineffectively treated schizophrenia.

Since 2015, the appellant has been effectively treated, his condition is in remission, and he has been symptom-free.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not knowingly fail to disclose his convictions and that any risk could be managed with conditions.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to issue the licence subject to ongoing medical reporting conditions.

The appellant, a casino dealer, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke his registration as a Class 2 gaming assistant under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The proposed revocation stemmed from an incident where the appellant pocketed approximately $2,000 found on the floor of another casino and left without reporting it, leading to a theft charge that was later withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's conduct, lack of credibility regarding his intention to return the money, and failure to demonstrate remorse or insight provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty, integrity, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposed order to revoke the registration.

Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion to add the builder, Remington Oakville Preserve Inc., as a party to the homeowner's appeal of a denied warranty claim.

The homeowner brought a cross-motion to exclude the builder's late-filed submissions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the homeowner's motion, finding no prejudice from the late filing.

The Tribunal granted Tarion's motion to add the builder as a party, finding that the builder had a significant interest in the proceeding because the alleged framing defects could expose the builder to significant financial loss and the issues overlapped with a prior proceeding involving the same parties.