OLAT 2019

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar refused registration on the grounds that the appellant made a false statement in his application regarding a past sexual assault conviction and that his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly provided an exculpatory and false explanation of his conviction, minimizing his behaviour and casting himself as the victim.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal and refuse the registration.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded because it was operated by a driver with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal late and brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant retrieved her car and intended to withdraw the motion, but did not clearly communicate this to the Tribunal.

At the hearing, the appellant confirmed she wished to withdraw her motion.

The Tribunal concluded the proceedings and closed the file.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after being driven by a suspended driver.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to verify the driver's licence status and did not establish exceptional hardship because she found alternative transportation.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle caused exceptional hardship to his family and significant financial loss.

The vehicle had been impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that while the loss of the vehicle caused significant inconvenience, the appellant was able to make alternate transportation arrangements.

Under the regulations, inconvenience cannot be considered, and financial loss only qualifies as exceptional hardship if no alternative transportation is available.

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.

At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal noted that the Criminal Code provisions authorizing the breath demand had been repealed prior to the suspension date, and the Highway Traffic Act had not been amended to reflect this.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing to allow the self-represented appellant to obtain legal advice and for both parties to prepare oral submissions on the legal effect of this legislative change.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant lent it to a friend who was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the impoundment caused financial and emotional stress, the appellant and his family managed to fulfill their obligations using alternative transportation.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship and confirmed the impoundment.

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

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for $1,252.55, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The applicant claimed to suffer from chronic pain, which would remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a chronic pain condition, noting a lack of medical evidence linking his complaints to the accident and accepting the insurer's medical examination finding no chronic pain.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied funding for several physical and psychological treatment plans and a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found that the physical treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant provided no evidence of their goals or how they would address her injuries.

The Tribunal granted the balance of the psychological assessment cost, finding it did not exceed the maximum fee in the Professional Services Guideline.

The psychological treatment plan was partially approved for 8 sessions and evaluation testing.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $748.05 for benefits mistakenly paid directly to her instead of the clinic.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his son provided care prior to the applicant's death from pre-existing cancer.

The insurer denied the claim because the applicant never submitted an Assessment of Attendant Care Needs (Form 1).

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the submission of a Form 1 is a mandatory requirement under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to establish entitlement to and the quantum of attendant care benefits.

Claims for a special award and costs were also dismissed.

The respondent insurer brought a motion for the production of the appellant's medical records and information regarding a subsequent insurance policy.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that the only issue in the appeal was whether he had a reasonable explanation for submitting his claim late, making medical records irrelevant.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that there was a medical issue in the appeal regarding the cost of a Disability Certificate, and that the requested documents were relevant to assessing the appellant's credibility and his explanation for the delay.

The applicant was struck by a bus and sought statutory accident benefits from the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the applicant's claims for non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits, finding she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and failed to prove her mother sustained an economic loss.

However, the Tribunal approved treatment plans for physiotherapy and chiropractic care as reasonable and necessary to treat ongoing pain.

The Tribunal also ordered the TTC to pay a $1,000 award under O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer breached its duty of good faith by unreasonably delaying benefits and failing to maintain transparent internal records.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice while jogging.

She claimed she was startled by an approaching vehicle, causing her to fall.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator reviewed contemporaneous medical records, which consistently cited ice as the cause of the fall without mentioning a vehicle.

Applying the direct causation test, the adjudicator found that the icy surface, not the automobile, was the direct cause of the applicant's injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on black ice immediately after parking and exiting his vehicle at a hospital.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the two-part purpose and causation test.

While the Tribunal found that parking the vehicle satisfied the purpose test, it concluded that the black ice was an intervening cause.

Therefore, the use or operation of the vehicle was not a direct cause of the applicant's injuries.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were minor and subject to the MIG funding limit, preferring the evidence of the respondent's assessors over the applicant's assessor, whose opinion relied heavily on self-reporting without objective validation.

The disputed treatment plans, special award, and costs were denied due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The appellants requested an adjournment of their hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal after their counsel withdrew approximately 48 hours before the scheduled start date.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, citing the time already invested in preparation and the potential frustration of witnesses.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to the appellants of proceeding unrepresented in a complex matter outweighed the prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal noted the appellants' mental health issues and the minimal risk to the public given an existing immediate suspension order.

The adjournment was marked peremptory.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The suspension followed a hospital admission for alcohol abuse and a Medical Condition Report diagnosing alcohol dependence and a mental illness.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from alcohol dependence exacerbated by a depressive disorder, and that this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

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

The appellant appealed two monetary penalties imposed by the Registrar for keeping adulterated liquor for sale and permitting patrons to remove liquor from the licensed premises.

The Tribunal found that the appellant kept watered-down rum for sale, noting that lack of knowledge or intent is not a defence to this strict liability regulatory offence.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant's manager knew or ought to have known that patrons were leaving the premises with cups of beer.

The appeal was dismissed and the monetary penalties totaling $2,500 were confirmed.

The appellant applied for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson and dealer.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the registrations on the grounds that the appellant made false statements regarding outstanding collection actions and failed to provide requested financial and corporate information.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant did not make a false statement, as he was unaware of the minor collection actions.

However, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to comply with the Registrar's reasonable requests for information under s. 6(1.1) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

Rather than refusing the registrations outright, the Tribunal deferred its final decision to allow the appellant six weeks to provide the requested information or withdraw his applications.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

Following case conferences, the parties reached a settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order vacating the scheduled hearing dates and directing that the appellant be registered as a salesperson subject to terms and conditions agreed upon in writing by the parties.

The Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards proposed to revoke the appellant's Motor Vehicle Inspection Station licence and mechanic registration.

The appellant appealed the proposal.

The tribunal found that the appellant had issued numerous safety standards certificates without inspecting the vehicles, issued certificates for vehicles that did not meet minimum safety standards, failed to complete required inspection reports, and failed to maintain proper inspection equipment.

The tribunal concluded that the Director established the grounds for revocation and directed the Director to carry out the proposal.