OLAT 2020

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

Medical evidence indicated the appellant had mild to moderate cognitive impairment related to phenylketonuria (PKU) and required a functional driving assessment.

The Tribunal found that the medical condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a motor vehicle and confirmed the suspension until a functional driving assessment is completed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was impounded because it was driven by a person with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship as she is unemployed, has a five-month-old baby, and had to cancel a routine doctor's appointment due to lack of alternative transportation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, noting she was unemployed prior to the impoundment, had alternative arrangements for groceries, and her daughter's health was not threatened.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence (class ACZ to G) for medical reasons following an incident where he lost consciousness.

The appellant argued the incident was caused by an allergic reaction to an insect sting, while the Minister relied on medical reports indicating a seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffered a generalized tonic clonic seizure.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded that the condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and confirmed the requirement for a one-year seizure-free period before reinstatement.

The applicant, an Uber driver, sought statutory accident benefits after an incident where he was verbally assaulted by passengers and feared for his safety.

He claimed he injured his knee when he swerved his vehicle to avoid a passenger who was attacking the outside of the car after being asked to exit.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an "accident" under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the incident did not meet the purpose or causation tests for an accident.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's ordinary use of the vehicle had ceased when the verbal assaults escalated, and the assaults were an intervening act that directly caused the alleged injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying entitlement to medical benefits and interest.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by ruling on settled issues, limiting written submissions, and failing to award interest on overdue payments.

The applicant also alleged errors of law and fact regarding the causation of a shoulder injury and the necessity of various treatment plans.

The adjudicator dismissed the majority of the request, finding no procedural unfairness or errors of law, and noting that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue facts.

However, the adjudicator granted the request in part, ordering the respondent to pay interest on two treatment plans it had previously agreed to fund.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's roommate drove it while his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as friends and neighbours assisted her with groceries and medical appointments.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no threat to health or safety and concluded that the financial impact of the impoundment fee did not constitute exceptional hardship under the legislation.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a psychological assessment.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that there was insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain to warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found that the proposed psychological assessment was not reasonable and necessary, as there was no objective evidence to suspect a psychological condition.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who was injured when his skateboard impacted a motor vehicle, sought non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and medical benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he had returned to full-time university studies and resumed sports.

The Tribunal also found that the attendant care benefits were not proven to be incurred or reasonable and necessary, and that the disputed portions of the occupational therapy and psychological treatment plans were not established as reasonable and necessary.

The Registrar proposed to suspend the registration of the appellants as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties attended a case conference and subsequently submitted a signed agreement consenting to an order with terms and conditions, waiving the requirement for a hearing.

The Tribunal issued a consent order imposing conditions related to compliance, books and records, and financial responsibility, and the appellants' request for a hearing was withdrawn.

The applicant sought to dispute the respondent insurer's denial of a non-earner benefit.

The Tribunal previously found that the application was filed beyond the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal had discretion to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999.

The Tribunal held that s. 7 applies only to limitation periods fixed by an Act, not those in regulations like the Schedule.

In the alternative, applying the Manuel test, the Tribunal found that the justice of the case did not favour extending the limitation period due to the lack of a bona fide intention to appeal, the length of the delay, and prejudice to the insurer.

The application was dismissed as time-barred.

The applicant sought medical benefits for physiotherapy and chiropractic treatments following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's initial notices of denial for the first two treatment plans failed to provide adequate medical and other reasons as required by s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Consequently, under s. 38(11), the insurer was ordered to pay for treatments incurred during the period of non-compliance.

However, the Tribunal concluded that none of the treatment plans were substantively reasonable and necessary, as the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery for his accident-related soft tissue injuries and his ongoing complaints were related to pre-existing conditions.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for the cost difference of upgrading her vehicle to accommodate her accident-related hip injuries.

The respondent insurer denied the claim without scheduling an insurer's examination or providing a valid medical reason.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the vehicle upgrade was a reasonable and necessary expense to relieve the applicant's pain and allow her to continue her employment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the $12,341.56 cost difference, plus interest, and awarded $1,200 under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 for the respondent's unreasonable delay and withholding of benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for income replacement benefits.

A preliminary issue was raised regarding whether she was employed or self-employed at her husband's television and stereo repair shop.

The respondent argued she was a partner in the business based on internet articles referring to her as a co-owner.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was an employee, as official corporate records showed she was not a shareholder or director, she received a regular salary with standard deductions, and there was no evidence of a partnership agreement.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments prevented him from working as a carpenter and security guard.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient medical evidence to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employments.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's experts because they were not informed of his second job as a security guard and relied on incomplete documentation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors and noted surveillance and employment records contradicted the applicant's testimony.

Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The parties resolved the issues in dispute and filed Minutes of Settlement requesting a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal substituted its opinion for that of the Registrar and ordered that the appellant's registration be subject to several conditions, including compliance with the Act, providing notice of changes, not being the final signatory on contracts, and providing police information checks.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied his claim for Income Replacement Benefits.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to fully consider medical evidence and testimony, including reports from various doctors and Service Canada findings.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-weigh the evidence rather than identifying an error of law or fact.

The Tribunal had properly considered all evidence in its original decision.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's physical impairments were minor.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting that her family doctor's records did not mention the accident or support ongoing physical impairments.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's examination and dismissed the application.

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

The insurer denied the treatment plan, arguing it was unsigned and not reasonable or necessary.

The Tribunal found that the insurer failed to raise the signature issue in a timely manner and that the applicant subsequently provided a signed copy.

Furthermore, the insurer's denial notices failed to provide sufficient medical reasons as required by s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Consequently, under s. 38(11), the treatment plan became payable starting on the 11th business day after receipt, along with interest.

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

The insurer denied certain benefits and requested the applicant attend insurer's examinations to determine ongoing entitlement to income replacement benefits.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing the insurer's reasons were boilerplate and insufficient.

The Tribunal found the insurer's reasons satisfied the notice requirements under section 44 of the Schedule, as they provided a principled rationale based fairly on the applicant's file.

Consequently, the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with her application under section 55(1)2 of the Schedule, and the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer determined her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the AMA Guides criteria and found the applicant failed to prove her pain adversely affected her well-being, noting she had returned to full-time work, resumed regular exercise, and did not use prescription pain medication.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries remained within the MIG and the proposed chronic pain assessment was not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.