OLAT 2019

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after a mechanic she hired to fix the brakes was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Registrar challenged her standing because she registered her ownership after the impoundment began, but the Tribunal found she had standing as she became the registered owner before the impoundment period ended.

The Tribunal dismissed arguments that the vehicle was stolen or that due diligence was exercised, but found that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the appellant, who suffers from multiple medical conditions and relies on ODSP, had no reasonable alternative transportation to access the food bank, posing a threat to her health and safety.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which held that the insurer must fund a catastrophic impairment assessment in addition to the $50,000 limit for medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer argued that the Adjudicator made a significant error of law in interpreting sections 18 and 25 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no significant error of law and agreeing that catastrophic impairment assessments are not included in the $50,000 medical benefit limit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming chronic pain, post-traumatic fibromyalgia, and sleep disorder to escape the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found the applicant's evidence of functional limitations and pain severity to be vague, inconsistent, and contradicted by his family doctor's records.

The adjudicator rejected the applicant's expert opinion and concluded the injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries subject to the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the claimed medical and assessment benefits were denied.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision denying the cost of an assessment, interest, and an award.

The request was filed beyond the 21-day time limit set out in Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The applicant's representative claimed not to have received the original decision but provided no explanation.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2, as the request was vague and provided no supporting analysis for the assertion that the adjudicator erred in law and fact.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the suspension of her driver's licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles following a medical report indicating a seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant had been seizure-free for six months, she refused to take prescribed anti-seizure medication contrary to the recommendations of three physicians.

Relying on the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's abnormal EEG results and lack of medication presented a significant risk of seizure recurrence.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of an interlocutory motion order requiring the production of adjuster's log notes, the complete accident benefits file, and IME raw data.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal 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 was injured in a motorcycle accident and applied for income replacement benefits, which the insurer denied because the applicant failed to attend a section 44 insurer examination.

The applicant argued he had a medical note excusing his attendance.

The Tribunal found that while the medical note provided a reasonable explanation for missing the initially scheduled examination, it did not excuse the applicant's failure to attend the rescheduled examination or make subsequent attempts to reschedule.

The Tribunal held that the applicant is barred under section 55(2) of the Schedule from proceeding with his application until he attends the insurer examinations.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice in a parking lot after exiting and locking her vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the Greenhalgh test and found that the use or operation of the vehicle was not a direct cause of the injuries, as the icy surface was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The Tribunal also held it lacked jurisdiction to apply the doctrine of estoppel against the insurer.

The application was dismissed.

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

She argued she was driving the vehicle and her licence was not suspended, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the police officer's evidence credible that another individual, whose licence was suspended, was driving the vehicle.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship as the appellant had alternative modes of transportation available.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying her income replacement benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

She argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact regarding her credibility and sought to introduce a new medical report as new evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that even if the alleged factual errors regarding her disclosure of modified work and a prior back injury were corrected, the original decision was supported by objective medical evidence and would not have changed.

The motion to admit the new report was also dismissed as it could have been obtained earlier and was merely a new opinion based on existing file information.

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

The respondent insurer requested the applicant attend an insurer's examination (IE) to determine if the injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing the proposed assessor's professional designation did not match the practitioner who recommended the benefits.

The Tribunal held that an insured cannot dictate the identity of the IE assessor, provided they are a regulated health professional.

Because the applicant failed to attend a properly scheduled IE, section 55(1)(2) of the Schedule precluded the applicant from proceeding with the application.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's refusal to issue him a commercial driver's licence due to his failure to meet minimum vision standards.

The Tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was an 'applicant' under section 32(5)(a) rather than a 'holder' under section 32(5)(b), and that the regulations only prescribe a right of appeal for decisions made under section 32(5)(b)(i).

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after his son's friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant did not check the driver's licence of the person actually driving the vehicle, and the family had alternative transportation options, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles issued a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration for a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The appellants appealed but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing or respond to subsequent communications from the Tribunal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants had abandoned the proceeding and ordered the appeal dismissed.

The applicant, a new owner of a licensed establishment, applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited minors after 9:30 p.m.

The condition had been imposed on the previous owner due to a disciplinary matter.

The Tribunal found that a change in circumstances had occurred, as the applicant was not connected to the previous owner and operated a family dining establishment rather than a nightclub.

With the consent of the Registrar, the Tribunal ordered the condition removed.

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

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 funding limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain and a psychological injury, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for several disputed treatment plans for chiropractic care, massage, and various assessments, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed, as the insurer's reliance on its own medical assessments did not constitute unreasonable behaviour.

The applicant, who was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought payment of legal fees incurred in obtaining a guardianship order as a rehabilitative benefit under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to submit a treatment and assessment plan in advance of incurring the expense, as required by section 38(2) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for interest, costs, and a special award.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal order dismissing its motion for the production of the applicant's pre-accident bank records.

The insurer sought the records to investigate a potential material misrepresentation regarding the applicant's residence, which would affect entitlement to income replacement benefits.

The Vice Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and law by concluding the records were only relevant to quantum and by accepting a lawyer's letter as sufficient evidence of 'best efforts' to obtain the closed account records.

The applicant was ordered to make written inquiries to the bank to obtain the records.

The applicant sought income replacement and housekeeping benefits following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits in 2011.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal in 2018, more than seven years after the denial.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denial was valid and contained the required dispute resolution information.

The Tribunal held that the application was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which had lapsed in April 2014.

The application for these benefits was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 90-day suspension of her driver's licence for refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing she was medically unable to do so due to acute anxiety and cancer treatments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence linking her conditions to an inability to provide a breath sample.

The Tribunal accepted the police officers' evidence that the appellant understood the demand and the consequences of refusal, and chose not to provide the sample.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.