OLAT 2019

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence following a Medical Condition Report citing dementia and paranoia.

The appellant failed to provide an up-to-date cognitive assessment as requested by the Ministry.

The Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a mental or cognitive condition that significantly affects her memory, judgment, problem-solving, sequencing, and insight, making her likely unable to drive safely.

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

The appellant condominium corporation missed the deadline to request conciliation from Tarion regarding first and second-year warranty claims for common element deficiencies.

Tarion deemed the claims withdrawn and refused to extend the deadline.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that extraordinary circumstances caused the delay.

The Tribunal found that a combination of factors, including the sudden death of the property manager's spouse, an overwhelming workload, chaotic records left by a previous manager, and miscommunications with an engineering consultant, constituted extraordinary circumstances.

The appeal was allowed, and Tarion was ordered to extend the deadline and accept the conciliation request.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause her exceptional hardship due to financial loss, as she would have to drive her second vehicle and depreciate its resale value.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that under Ontario Regulation 631/98, financial loss cannot be considered as exceptional hardship if the owner has an available alternative vehicle.

Since the appellant owned and operated a second vehicle, the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a Class G licence due to a heart condition.

The Registrar relied on medical guidelines suggesting the appellant was ineligible because of intermittent inotropic support.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was not receiving intermittent inotropes and that his coronary artery disease was stable and well-managed.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision, finding no evidence that the appellant's condition significantly interfered with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

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

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the appellant be registered as a motor vehicle dealer in the wholesaler class, subject to strict conditions prohibiting a specific individual from having any beneficial interest, control, or involvement in the business.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a friend with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that while the impoundment caused inconvenience and financial strain, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had access to public transportation as an alternative.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment order confirmed.

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

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to financial burden and the inconvenience of transporting her children.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including renting a car and receiving transportation assistance from her parents, and that inconvenience cannot be considered under the regulations.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an unlicensed driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had not established exceptional hardship, as she was able to make alternate transportation arrangements for work and family needs, and other vehicles were available.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it caused exceptional hardship due to medical appointments and financial strain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as rides from friends and taxis, which she utilized during the impoundment period.

Because alternatives were available, the Tribunal could not consider financial loss as a factor for exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The suspension followed two incidents of erratic driving where the appellant admitted to smoking heroin prior to driving.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffered from a heroin addiction that significantly interfered with his ability to drive safely, noting his short period of abstinence, lack of remorse, and history of driving after drug use.

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

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons following reports of binge drinking and elevated biochemical markers indicative of alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from an ongoing, untreated addiction to alcohol and lacks insight into his condition.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's alcohol use disorder is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it caused exceptional hardship because she needed it for work and to transport her family.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to a second vehicle registered in her name, which she was already using.

As an alternative vehicle was available, the legal test for exceptional hardship under the Highway Traffic Act was not met.

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

The appellant argued he was abstinent and attending treatment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that while the appellant had made progress, he had not yet demonstrated a sufficient period of abstinence (six months) confirmed by bio-chemical markers and supported by a favourable recommendation from his treating physician, as required to show his condition no longer interfered with his ability to drive safely.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to cognitive impairment.

The appellant's family physician diagnosed him with mild cognitive impairment, and he subsequently failed three functional driving assessments.

Despite the appellant's testimony and conflicting medical reports from other doctors obtained after the suspension, the Tribunal found the failed functional assessments and the initial diagnosis compelling.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant suffers from a cognitive impairment likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to spinal injuries and a chronic pain disorder.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in fact by finding a diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome and erred in law regarding the definition of minor injury and causation.

The Vice Chair found that while the Tribunal technically erred in stating there was a specific diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome, the error was not significant enough to alter the decision, as the removal from the MIG was primarily based on objective evidence of spinal injuries.

The Tribunal also made no errors in law regarding the definition of minor injury or causation.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by basing its decision solely on credibility, violated procedural fairness by not holding an oral hearing, and made errors of fact regarding his reported activities.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding the Tribunal properly weighed the totality of the medical and surveillance evidence, the applicant had consented to a written hearing and had opportunities to respond to the surveillance evidence, and the Tribunal made no significant errors of fact.

The applicant was struck by a minivan and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, an in-home assessment, and an orthopaedic assessment.

The respondent initially denied the treatment plans with defective notices under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, but later provided proper notice with IE reports.

The Tribunal found that none of the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying on the applicant's family doctor's records and the respondent's IE physician.

However, because of the initially defective notice, the respondent was ordered to pay for any physiotherapy costs incurred between the 11th business day after the plan was submitted and the date proper notice was given.

The claims for the assessments and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a catastrophic impairment determination approximately 15 months post-accident.

Because the application was submitted prior to the two-year mark, the applicant was required to satisfy the additional criteria under s. 3.1(2)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's medical experts provided projections of future impairment rather than a present determination that the applicant had a 55% whole person impairment.

Furthermore, the evidence did not establish that the applicant's condition was unlikely to improve to less than 55% impairment.

The application was dismissed as premature.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for acupuncture and physiotherapy services.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving the treatments were reasonable and necessary, as she did not submit the disputed treatment plans in evidence and her own family doctor's notes indicated significant physical improvement.

The respondent's medical assessor also concluded there were no ongoing musculoskeletal impairments.

The application was dismissed and no interest was awarded.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer scheduled three insurer's examinations (IEs) which the applicant failed to attend, arguing the notice was deficient and the IEs were not reasonably necessary.

The Tribunal found the notice was sufficient to allow an informed decision, the minor deficiencies did not confuse the applicant, and the IEs were reasonably necessary.

As the applicant failed to comply with section 44 of the Schedule, his application for non-earner benefits was dismissed pursuant to section 55(1).