OLAT 2020

The insurer sought reconsideration of a decision ordering it to pay a $1,500 special award on two files for unreasonably withholding or delaying payment of attendant care benefits.

The insurer argued that the previous reconsideration decision did not explicitly order payment and that it was simply following the Tribunal's procedure to determine the final quantum.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the previous decision had settled a minimum amount due, which the insurer accepted and failed to pay for 10 months.

The Tribunal held that in the context of consumer protection legislation, it was unreasonable for the insurer to delay paying the undisputed minimum amount while litigating a minor remaining difference.

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

The respondent insurer determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied further medical benefits and income replacement benefits (IRB).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and that she failed to establish chronic pain or psychological injury to remove her from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRB, finding insufficient medical evidence to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment, and denied the claims for medication expenses.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after loaning it to a friend whose driver's licence was suspended in Ontario.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by verifying the driver possessed a valid Alberta driver's licence and knowing he had recently been pulled over by police without issue.

The Tribunal found the appellant took reasonable steps to ensure the driver was properly licensed and set aside the impoundment order.

The appellant appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to an extremely poor commercial vehicle safety rating.

The appellant's violation rate reached 115.08% of the maximum allowable threshold, driven by multiple at-fault collisions, convictions, and vehicle defects.

Despite previous Ministry interventions and warnings, the appellant failed to implement effective remedial measures or improve its safety record.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar had ample reason to believe the appellant would not operate its commercial vehicles safely and confirmed the order to cancel the appellant's CVOR certificate and seize its permits and plates.

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

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact regarding the assessment of his pre-accident activities as a paramedic candidate, his psychological impairments, and his post-accident restrictions.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal carefully weighed the evidence and made no errors of law or fact that would warrant reconsideration.

The added party builder brought a motion to have the upcoming appeal hearing proceed in person and to limit the scope of the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the request for an in-person hearing due to the ongoing pandemic, ordering that the hearing proceed by videoconference.

The Tribunal granted the request to limit the scope of the hearing to the issues of the precast front porch steps and rainwater penetration, as other issues had been previously adjudicated.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which was seized after being driven by an employee whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence and would suffer exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that merely observing the employee's licence months prior did not constitute due diligence.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because he had access to an alternative vehicle for his roofing business and did not demonstrate lasting financial loss.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after an unknown individual was caught driving it without a valid licence.

The appellant argued exceptional hardship and due diligence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the exceptional hardship claim because the appellant had access to alternative transportation.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the due diligence ground.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had reasonably attempted to transfer the vehicle to her ex-husband pursuant to a separation agreement, and it was unreasonable to expect her to verify the licence of an unknown driver who was permitted to drive by her ex-husband.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed a 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act after her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended license.

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to care for her ailing parents and could not afford the $2,800 release fee.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had reasonable alternatives, such as her parents' vehicle, and failed to establish a threat to health or safety that would permit consideration of financial hardship.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's funeral pre-planner licence, alleging she mismanaged client funds by accepting e-transfers into her personal account and using one client's credit card to pay another's account.

The appellant appealed the proposal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant's actions were deficient and ill-advised, there was no evidence of deceit, misappropriation for personal benefit, or harm to clients.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the revocation.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied the cost of examinations for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by failing to consider initial submissions and made an error of law regarding causation.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal had considered all submissions and applied the correct legal test in determining that the assessment was not reasonable and necessary.

The appellant requested a hearing regarding the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties subsequently reached an agreement and submitted a consent order waiving the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal accepted the consent order, which imposed strict conditions on the appellant's registration, including supervision requirements, disclosure obligations, and a two-year prohibition on acting as a manager or final signatory for a dealer.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence on medical grounds.

The Registrar suspended the licence after receiving reports from three physicians indicating the appellant suffered from cognitive impairment following a hospitalization.

The Registrar required a satisfactory functional driving assessment for reinstatement, which the appellant had not completed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the available medical information supported the conclusion that the appellant had a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and that a functional driving assessment was necessary before reinstatement.

The appellants appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse their registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a resolution and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal directed the Registrar to refuse Robert Kelly McGlogan's registration as a salesperson, and ordered that the registrations of Motorhead Classics as a dealer and Kevin Robert Klein as a salesperson be subject to extensive terms and conditions for three years.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle dealer under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, based on past conduct and a false statement.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement and requested a consent order under s. 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal accepted the consent order, under which the appellant withdrew his application for dealer registration and the Registrar agreed to grant him registration as a motor vehicle salesperson subject to strict conditions.

The appeal was disposed of without a hearing.

The applicant, a pedestrian injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought a medical benefit of $1,553.60 for a treatment plan after being removed from the Minor Injury Guideline.

The respondent denied the claim based on an insurer's examination by an orthopaedic surgeon who concluded the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support the treatment plan and that the respondent did not engage in unfair practices or unreasonably delay the claim.

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

The respondent insurer denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered accident-related psychological impairments and chronic pain that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed physiotherapy, psychological treatment, and chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary, along with interest on the overdue amounts.

Both the applicant and the insurer requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision.

The applicant challenged the finding that she was not entitled to income replacement benefits (IRBs) because she did not earn employment income prior to the accident.

The insurer challenged the finding that it was not entitled to repayment of $17,563.50 in IRBs because it failed to obtain explicit consent to serve the notice of repayment electronically.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding no errors of law or fact in the original decision.

The applicant's request for costs was also denied.

The applicant, a self-employed delivery driver, sought statutory accident benefits after a garage door fell on his head while he was picking up parcels at a commercial business.

He had parked his van, turned it off, opened the sliding door, and was walking through the garage door when it fell.

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

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

While the purpose test was met, the Tribunal found the causation test was not satisfied.

The use of the vehicle had ended when the applicant left it to retrieve packages, and the falling garage door was an intervening act independent of the vehicle's use.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and suffered a cardiac arrest twelve days later, resulting in severe anoxic brain damage.

He sought various accident benefits, arguing the accident caused increased stress that led to the heart attack.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet the 'but for' causation test.

Relying on medical evidence of advanced pre-existing coronary artery disease and the lack of documented stress complaints immediately post-accident, the Tribunal concluded the accident was not a necessary cause of the cardiac arrest.

The applicant's physical injuries were deemed soft-tissue in nature and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline.