OLAT 2019

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse an application for a liquor sales licence.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant was acting as a front for his father, whose past conduct, including a criminal conviction and improper use of special occasion permits, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Registrar also alleged that the father made false statements by failing to disclose his criminal conviction on the Personal Disclosure Form.

The Tribunal found that the father was the true owner of the business and that his past conduct and false statements justified the refusal.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the Notice of Proposal to refuse the application.

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

She argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she relied on the vehicle to transport her daughter to a specialized high school and rugby practice 50 km away, which was critical for her daughter's scholarship opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the appellant, who was on social assistance, had no viable alternatives for this transportation and that the loss of the training opportunity would be immediate, significant, and lasting.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was directed to release the vehicle and pay the impoundment costs.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for an in-home assessment, prescription medication, a chronic pain assessment, and chiropractic treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the claims.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to the in-home assessment or the prescription expenses, as the evidence did not establish they were reasonable and necessary for accident-related impairments.

However, the Tribunal granted the claims for the chronic pain assessment and chiropractic treatment, finding that the applicant's pre-existing chronic pain was exacerbated by the accident and that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary to manage her symptoms.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payments for the approved benefits.

Economical Mutual Insurance Company applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for repayment of $3,245.86 in income replacement benefits (IRBs) paid to the respondent between January 1, 2016, and August 3, 2017.

The Tribunal had previously determined that the respondent's IRB entitlement for this period was $0.00.

The respondent argued that Economical failed to provide a valid notice of repayment within the required 12-month period under section 52(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that Economical's initial notice in March 2016 was substantially correct and valid.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to repay the overpaid amount of $3,245.86, plus interest starting from August 31, 2017.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision denying her non-earner benefits.

She argued the Tribunal erred by addressing the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), which was not in dispute, and by failing to consider her reply submissions.

The respondent also requested reconsideration to correct the denial date and remove the MIG findings.

The adjudicator acknowledged errors in addressing the MIG and missing the reply submissions.

However, the adjudicator found that considering the reply submissions would not have changed the outcome, as they only addressed procedural fairness and not the substantive medical evidence.

The request to vary the decision on non-earner benefits was denied, but the findings regarding the MIG were removed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that found her claim for non-earner benefits was statute-barred.

The applicant argued the insurer's denial letter was not clear and unequivocal and that subsequent actions created reasonable doubt.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant error of law or fact in the original decision, as the denial was clear and the insurer's subsequent actions were part of its ongoing obligation to adjust the file.

The applicant, who suffered catastrophic impairments in a motor vehicle accident, sought payment for a new camper trailer as a rehabilitation benefit under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the camper trailer was reasonable and necessary to reduce the effects of his disability or facilitate his reintegration, as he had already returned to his pre-accident camping activities years prior.

The application for the camper trailer was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on medical reports indicating the appellant suffered from Substance Use Disorder, specifically Alcohol Use Disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffered from mild-moderate Alcohol Use Disorder and had not demonstrated sufficient insight, acceptance, or compliance with medical recommendations.

The Tribunal concluded that the condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

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

After the applicant failed to attend two scheduled case conferences, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application as abandoned.

The Tribunal ordered written submissions on the motion, but the applicant failed to provide any submissions despite follow-up from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference, found that the applicant had been given ample opportunity to participate, and granted the respondent's motion, dismissing the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied his claim for an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and law regarding his pre-existing conditions, psychological injuries, and inability to work, and sought to introduce new medical evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no significant errors in the original decision and concluding that the new evidence could have been obtained earlier and would not have changed the outcome.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform her employment tasks.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to prove her pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, or chronic pain removed her from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the medical benefits were denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an income replacement benefit, finding the applicant returned to work shortly after the accident and failed to demonstrate a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans for chiropractic services, psychological treatment, and a functional cognitive assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found that three of the four chiropractic treatment plans and the psychological treatment plan were reasonable and necessary, ordering the insurer to pay them with interest.

However, the Tribunal denied the fourth chiropractic plan as it was duplicative and lacked a home exercise progression, and denied the cognitive assessment due to a lack of evidence of significant cognitive impairment.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence to establish any of these exceptions, preferring the objective evidence of the insurer's examiners over the applicant's self-reported symptoms and clinical impressions.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for Income Replacement Benefits, finding insufficient evidence of a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of pre-accident employment.

The appeal was denied.

The appellants appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse their registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties submitted a signed agreement waiving the hearing and consenting to an order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the registrations be issued subject to several conditions, including compliance with record-keeping requirements, restrictions on financing, and completion of an educational course.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after she was caught driving with a licence that had been suspended since 2004.

While the Tribunal found her licence was indeed suspended, it granted the appeal on the basis of exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal accepted that the appellant, who suffers from COPD and other medical conditions, had no viable alternative transportation to attend medical appointments and obtain necessary groceries in her rural community, and that the continued impoundment threatened her health.

The vehicle was ordered released to its co-owner.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to chiropractic treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and law regarding the medical evidence of causation, the severity of a subsequent accident, and the refusal to extend a limitation period for a denied treatment plan.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant errors of law or fact that would have likely resulted in a different decision.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident while operating a taxi and sought statutory accident benefits for bone growth stimulator services, a multidisciplinary chronic pain program, and an MRI of the spine.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the bone growth stimulator and MRI were reasonable and necessary, noting the ankle fracture showed good healing and the MRI request lacked sufficient justification.

For the chronic pain program, the Tribunal granted entitlement only to the functional exercise program component, as it was recommended by the insurer's own assessor, but denied the remaining modalities due to insufficient evidence.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payment for the functional exercise program.

The appellant appealed the suspension of his driver's licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report indicating a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the incident was a severe panic attack, not an alcohol withdrawal seizure.

While the appellant admitted to having an alcohol use disorder, the Tribunal concluded it was well-controlled and did not significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the appellant's licence.

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

The insurer suspended benefits after the applicant failed to provide requested post-accident bank records.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's request under s. 33 of the Schedule was reasonable, given surveillance evidence showing the applicant at her employer's premises and the fact that her employer was a company owned by her husband.

Because the applicant failed to comply with the reasonable request, the insurer was not liable to pay the benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision ordering payment of a $2,106 treatment plan for physiotherapy services.

The insurer argued the Adjudicator erred in interpreting a Partial Release signed in a related FSCO matter as not barring the LAT claim.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the Partial Release clearly limited the settlement to past claims that were the subject matter of the FSCO file, and the insurer failed to establish a significant error of law or fact.