OLAT 2019

The applicant, the new owner of a licensed establishment, applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited persons under 19 years of age from entering the premises.

The condition was imposed in 2006 under previous ownership due to underage drinking infractions.

The respondent consented to the removal, noting there had been no further infractions since the condition was imposed and none under the new ownership.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances under s. 14(2) of the Act and ordered the condition removed.

The applicant applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence requiring the sale and service of alcohol to cease at 10 p.m.

The condition was imposed 15 years prior based on an agreement with a resident objector.

The parties agreed that the neighbourhood and the applicant's business model had changed, and the applicant had a clean regulatory record.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act and ordered the condition removed on consent.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chronic pain treatment following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied based on its own medical examinations.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's chronic pain specialist over the insurer's examiners, finding that the applicant suffered from ongoing physical and psychological pain.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the disputed medical benefit and interest, but declined to order a special award, finding the insurer's denial was not unreasonable.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a preliminary decision which found that the applicant's claims for attendant care and medical benefits were not statute-barred.

The original adjudicator had concluded that the insurer's denial notices were not 'clear and unequivocal' because they included an application for catastrophic impairment, which might confuse an unsophisticated person.

On reconsideration, the Associate Chair found that the adjudicator made a significant error of law or fact.

The Associate Chair held that the denial notices, which included standard-form disclosures of the right to appeal and the two-year limitation period, were clear and unequivocal.

Consequently, the reconsideration was granted, and the applicant's claims for the disputed benefits were dismissed as statute-barred.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's daughter allowed a suspended driver to operate it.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the impounding officer failed to forward notice to the Registrar and ordered an early release.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction because the officer had the legal authority to impound the vehicle at the time.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, a requirement for proving exceptional hardship.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for income replacement benefits, chiropractic treatment, and psychological treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated the rules of natural justice and made significant errors of fact and law, including misapplying the burden of proof and failing to consider the insurer's alleged non-compliance with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no evidence of procedural unfairness or significant errors in the original decision.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a motion order that permitted the applicant to file a late affidavit regarding an orthopaedic assessment.

The respondent argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and law and breached procedural fairness by denying cross-examination.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant errors and noting that the respondent was given an opportunity to respond to the affidavit, which minimized any prejudice and satisfied procedural fairness.

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

The suspension followed a Medical Condition Report submitted after the appellant suffered a generalized seizure during a sleep-deprived EEG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from an epilepsy/seizure disorder that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, noting her lack of insight into the condition, ongoing medication side effects, and the absence of therapeutic drug level monitoring.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The appellant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence and found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order was confirmed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain assessment and a neurological assessment, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that both assessments were reasonable and necessary given the applicant's ongoing complaints of pain and headaches, preferring the recommendations of the applicant's assessors over the insurer's medical examiner.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the assessments and interest on overdue benefits, but declined to order an award under O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer had properly considered the claims.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a motion decision that dismissed its request to dismiss the application.

The insurer had conceded all issues in dispute (entitlement and quantum of benefits) and argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing when there was no live dispute.

The Vice-Chair found that while the Tribunal did not lose jurisdiction, the original adjudicator made a significant error of law in interpreting section 281 of the Insurance Act.

Section 281 provides procedural protection after a decision is made but does not require the Tribunal to hold a hearing when all issues are resolved.

The reconsideration was granted, and the application was dismissed, save for the issue of costs.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her boyfriend was caught driving it while suspended and over the legal alcohol limit.

She argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the appellant had left her keys in the car and provided her boyfriend with the access code.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternative transportation options, including rides from her parents and friends.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing its appeal as abandoned after failing to attend case conferences.

The appellant's counsel explained that the notice of the case conference was sent to an inactive email address not provided in the appeal materials.

The respondent consented to the reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that the rules of procedural fairness were violated because the appellant did not receive proper notice, cancelled the dismissal order, and directed the parties to attend a new case conference.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, had his commercial driver's licence downgraded from Class DZ to Class G by the Minister of Transportation after suffering a single epileptic seizure in his sleep.

The appellant appealed the decision to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant did suffer an epileptic seizure, the condition was well-controlled by medication and he was at low risk for recurrence.

The Tribunal concluded that the condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a Class D motor vehicle safely, and set aside the Minister's decision to downgrade the licence.

The appellant, a registered motor vehicle dealer and salesperson, sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that directed the Registrar to carry out a proposal to refuse and revoke his registrations.

The original decision found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with law, integrity, and honesty due to his failure to notify the Registrar of a criminal charge and his conspiracy to roll back a vehicle's odometer.

On reconsideration, the appellant argued for leniency and maintained his innocence regarding the odometer tampering.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the appellant failed to establish any error of fact or law, or any violation of procedural fairness in the original decision.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons.

During the hearing, the appellant requested an adjournment to submit preliminary results from a recent functional assessment at an approved driving centre.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the hearing adjourned to a later date to allow for the exchange and review of the new medical information.

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

After multiple adjournments and the withdrawal of their legal representative, the applicant failed to attend the rescheduled oral hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned their claim and dismissed the application without a hearing pursuant to Rule 3.4(d) of the Tribunal's Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

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

After withdrawing his claim for a non-earner benefit, the applicant requested that the Tribunal proceed with a written hearing solely to determine whether his injuries were subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal held that it does not have jurisdiction to determine whether the MIG applies as a stand-alone issue in the absence of an underlying dispute relating to entitlement to a specific benefit under the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent insurer filed a request for reconsideration of a preliminary decision more than 12 months after the 21-day deadline, arguing that its timely appeal to the Divisional Court demonstrated its intention to pursue a review.

The Tribunal declined to extend the deadline under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act or Rule 3, finding that allowing the late reconsideration would not promote an efficient or timely resolution and would prejudice the applicant who had already responded to the unsuccessful court appeal.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to exclude transcripts from a criminal proceeding from being admitted as evidence at an upcoming hearing for statutory accident benefits.

The applicant argued the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion as premature, holding that the admissibility of evidence should be determined by the hearing adjudicator who will have a full appreciation of the facts.

A second motion to extend the production deadline was granted on consent.