OLAT 2019

The appellant trucking company sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of its truck, which occurred after its driver was found driving with a suspended licence.

The appeal was filed after the impoundment period had expired.

The Registrar brought a counter-motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal commenced outside the impoundment period.

The Tribunal held that it does have jurisdiction to hear such an appeal, finding that the statutory language does not restrict appeals to the impoundment period.

However, applying the factors for an extension of time under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, the Tribunal declined to grant the extension due to the length of delay, lack of bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, and weak merits of the due diligence defence.

Both motions were dismissed.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an adjudicator's motion decision that granted the respondent's request to cross-examine the applicant on her affidavit.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, noting that under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the proceeding was ongoing, the request was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the insurer failed to properly deny the non-earner benefits and a psychological assessment treatment plan in accordance with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, entitling the applicant to those benefits for the period of the insurer's non-compliance.

However, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life for the ongoing period.

The Tribunal also awarded a 25% penalty under O. Reg. 664 due to the insurer's unreasonable delay in adjusting the claim, particularly given the applicant's known vulnerability due to pre-existing schizophrenia.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent insurer denied funding for a psychological assessment and treatment plan, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from accident-related psychological injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder, which removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed psychological assessment and treatment plan, along with interest, but denied the applicant's request for an award under Regulation 664, finding the insurer's initial denials were not unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and various assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof.

The Tribunal entirely rejected the applicant's occupational therapy expert report, finding the assessor was biased, partisan, and provided opinions outside the scope of their expertise.

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

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

The insurer denied a chiropractic treatment plan and requested an insurer examination (IE).

The applicant failed to attend the IE, citing travel out of the country.

The Tribunal found that the insurer made reasonable efforts to schedule the IE and provided proper medical reasons for the denial.

Because the applicant did not have a reasonable explanation for failing to attend, the Tribunal held that section 55(1)2 of the Schedule barred the application from proceeding until the applicant complied with the IE request.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an adjudicator's decision to adjourn a motion regarding three treatment plans.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, noting that under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

The Associate Chair declined to use the liberal interpretation provision in Rule 3 to vary Rule 18, finding that bifurcating the proceedings would cause unwarranted delay.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for physiotherapy.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal further held that the proposed physiotherapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary for her recovery, and awarded the disputed benefits along with interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought the cost of various catastrophic impairment assessments.

The respondent insurer partially denied the treatment plan, arguing the assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

Following a written hearing, the adjudicator found that only the Functional Review Evaluation was reasonable and necessary to procure accurate digital measurements under the AMA Guides.

The remaining assessments, including the AMPS, collateral interview, file review, and consensus opinion, were deemed duplicative or not essential.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the Functional Review Evaluation plus interest.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and denied her claims for non-earner and medical benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator failed to consider whether the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator reviewed the treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and various assessments.

Applying the criteria for reasonable and necessary treatment, the adjudicator found that the applicant had sufficient functional abilities and that further assessments would be duplicative.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' cancellation of its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The appellant argued the Tribunal misapprehended evidence regarding a collision, failed to weigh recent safety improvements, and that the appellant was denied due process.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no significant error of law or fact in the original decision and noting that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to reweigh evidence.

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

The applicant provided evidence that an original objector and several neighbours now supported extending the patio hours.

The respondent Registrar agreed there was a change in circumstances and consented to the removal of the condition.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the condition removed, to be replaced with a condition allowing daily service until 10:15 pm.

The applicant sought payment for five chiropractic treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the insurer failed to comply with the 10-day notice requirement under section 38(8) of the Schedule for three of the plans, ordering the insurer to pay for treatment incurred during the non-compliance periods.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the substantive entitlement to the treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The objective medical evidence and independent assessments indicated the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and would not benefit from further facility-based treatment.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded under the Highway Traffic Act.

She filed an appeal 12 days after the 15-day deadline expired and brought a motion for an extension of time.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test for extending time, finding that the appellant demonstrated a bona fide intention to appeal and that the delay did not cause undue prejudice to the Registrar.

The motion for an extension of time was granted and a hearing was scheduled to determine if the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision denying entitlement to catastrophic determination assessments on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant argued that under section 25(1) of the Schedule and the FSCO decision in Henderson, the insurer is obligated to pay for the assessments without applying the reasonable and necessary test.

The adjudicator denied the request for reconsideration, finding no significant error of law or fact, and affirmed that entitlement to catastrophic assessments is subject to the reasonableness and necessity test.

The applicant sought payment for a physiatry assessment following a motor vehicle accident that resulted in a traumatic brain injury.

The respondent insurer denied the cost, relying on an assessment by a general practitioner.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the physiatry assessment was reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant and her treating professionals.

The Tribunal also found the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits due to multiple errors in handling the file, and ordered a 25% special award under Regulation 664, along with interest on the overdue payment.

The appellant sought to appeal a Notice of Proposal to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence.

However, the licence in question had already been revoked because the original licence holder did not appeal a separate proposal to revoke it.

Following the revocation, the Registrar withdrew the proposal to refuse the transfer.

The Tribunal held that because there was no longer an existing licence to transfer and no outstanding proposal to refuse the transfer, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to review its application for a liquor licence.

Prior to the hearing, the parties, including the City of Toronto and community objectors, reached an agreement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to issue the liquor licence subject to conditions regarding operating hours, capacity limits, and community consideration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision denying his claims for pre-104-week and post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by misapplying the IRB tests and erred in fact by discrediting his medical expert's report.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal tests under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and reasonably weighed the evidence.

The adjudicator noted that the Tribunal was entitled to give less weight to the applicant's expert report because it relied on self-reporting that was inconsistent with the medical records.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an adjudicator's decision denying a request to vary the hearing timetable.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration because, pursuant to the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Since the proceeding was ongoing, the request was dismissed.