OLAT 2020

The appellant builder brought a motion to dismiss the Registrar's notice of proposal to refuse its registration renewal, arguing the proposal was ultra vires because the registration had already been renewed.

The appellant relied on a notification on Tarion's online builder portal indicating its registration was 'approved'.

The Tribunal found that the online notification was an administrative error and that the appellant's registration had never been renewed.

The motion was dismissed, allowing the appeal of the notice of proposal to proceed on its merits.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle for driving while suspended.

He argued that he exercised due diligence by assuming his lawyer had filed an appeal of his criminal charges, which would have reinstated his licence, and that taking public transit during the COVID-19 pandemic constituted exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not exercise due diligence, as he failed to confirm the status of his appeal or licence before driving.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, distinguishing the case from precedent, as the appellant did not demonstrate an amplified risk of contagion on public transit.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for delayed occupancy compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants experienced multiple delays in the closing of their new home and ultimately signed an agreement with the builder granting an extension in exchange for waiving their right to delayed closing compensation.

The Tribunal found that the waiver agreement was clear, unequivocal, and negotiated with the assistance of legal counsel, with no evidence of coercion or bad faith.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed Tarion's decision and dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants had validly waived their right to compensation.

The appellant appealed the downgrade of his class ACM driver's licence with a Z endorsement, which allowed him to drive heavy vehicles.

His licence was suspended for medical reasons following spinal surgery.

A functional driving assessment recommended a G licence due to ongoing mobility issues.

The Registrar required a three-part driver's examination, including a road test in an AC class vehicle, to maintain the commercial licence.

The appellant failed to complete the road test, resulting in the downgrade.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar had reasonable grounds to believe the appellant could not safely operate an AC class vehicle and that it was reasonable to require a satisfactory road test.

The appeal was denied.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it was taken without her knowledge and consent.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver, marking the second such occurrence in two years.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing despite multiple accommodations and reminders from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as abandoned and confirmed the impoundment, finding the appellant failed to meet her burden of proof.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen by her son's girlfriend (a suspended driver) and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the driver did not intend to deprive the owner of it.

The Tribunal also found the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as she did not demonstrate that no alternatives were available or that the impoundment would result in immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss or a threat to health and safety.

However, the Tribunal reduced the impoundment period from 90 days to 45 days, noting this was the appellant's first valid impoundment.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his class G driver's licence due to an alleged alcohol use disorder.

The suspension followed an alcohol withdrawal seizure, though the seizure issue was resolved prior to the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no medical evidence confirming a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not suffer from a medical condition that would significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a motor vehicle, and set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's mechanic, whose licence was suspended, was found in the vehicle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant owned multiple other vehicles and therefore had alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

Loss of convenience is not a permitted factor under the regulation, and the appellant failed to establish a threat to health or safety.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his class G driver's licence due to an alcohol use disorder of unknown severity.

The suspension was based on an unsolicited medical report from the appellant's family doctor indicating noncompliance with treatment recommendations.

The appellant failed to provide further medical evidence to rebut the report or clarify the severity of his condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and affirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her roommate drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under s. 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no alternative transportation to get to her job and childcare provider, and that losing her job would have an immediate, significant, and lasting impact.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her ex-partner, whose licence was suspended, was caught driving it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as there were alternatives to the impounded vehicle available, such as public transit, taxis, and delivery services.

Furthermore, there was no demonstrated threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant argued that the vehicle, which was unplated and not roadworthy, had been stolen from her rural property by the suspended driver.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's uncontradicted evidence that the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle and pay the impoundment costs.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a family friend in violation of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, she exercised due diligence, and the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove the vehicle was stolen or that due diligence was exercised.

However, the Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle on the basis of exceptional hardship, finding that the appellant lacked reasonable transportation alternatives to access necessary dental and orthodontic care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was impounded because she was driving without an ignition interlock device as required by a condition on her licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine her licence status, relying on an Ontario driver's abstract that indicated her licence was not suspended and had no outstanding reinstatement conditions.

The Tribunal found that the appellant exercised due diligence and ordered the release of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship to his roofing business.

The vehicle was impounded because it was being driven by a suspended driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative vehicle was available or that he had inquired into reasonable options, such as renting a truck.

Furthermore, the appellant did not provide sufficient financial evidence to prove that the loss of the vehicle would result in an immediate, significant, and lasting economic loss.

The appellant appealed the suspension of his driver's licence for medical reasons under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar suspended the licence following an emergency room visit where the appellant presented with a head injury and a highly elevated blood alcohol level.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant did not suffer from a head injury that would interfere with driving, he did suffer from an alcohol use disorder.

Given the appellant's lack of insight, poor compliance with treatment, and history of driving while suspended, the Tribunal concluded the disorder was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

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

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

The suspension was initiated after a physician reported that the appellant suffered from alcohol dependence and cognitive impairment.

The appellant subsequently submitted a substance use assessment confirming a diagnosis of severe substance use disorder, but failed to submit the required cognitive assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision, finding it reasonable to maintain the suspension until the appellant completes a one-year period of abstinence and provides the requested cognitive assessment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied four treatment and assessment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the April 2018 chiropractic treatment plan was partially reasonable and necessary, and that the respondent failed to provide a compliant denial notice under section 38 of the Schedule, making it liable for incurred expenses during the non-compliance period.

The Tribunal also approved a March 2019 psychological treatment plan.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for a July 2018 chiropractic plan and a physiatry assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical, rehabilitation, and assessment benefits from the respondent insurer.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary, relying on insurer examinations.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the treatment and assessment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of objective medical evidence linking his current complaints to the accident and a lack of functional impairment.

Additionally, one claim for chiropractic treatment was found to be statute-barred as the appeal was filed past the two-year limitation period.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was barred from claiming IRBs under s. 31(1)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because she intentionally failed to notify the insurer of a material change in risk.

Specifically, the insurer alleged the applicant moved from Quebec to Ontario prior to the accident but maintained her Quebec-based insurance policy, which carried a significantly lower premium.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been residing and working in Ontario since February 2016, prior to the April 2017 accident, and failed to disclose this change to the insurer.

The Tribunal concluded this was a material misrepresentation that prejudiced the insurer.

The applicant's claim for IRBs was barred, and her request for relief from forfeiture and costs were dismissed.