OLAT 2020

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied.

The applicant filed an appeal with the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than two years after the denial.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the claim was statute-barred under section 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant requested an extension of time under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

The Tribunal found the application was filed at least two months late and the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence or argument to satisfy the four-part test for an extension of time.

The claim for the non-earner benefit was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant, a driver who was assaulted by his passengers after exiting his vehicle, sought reconsideration of a decision finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in fact regarding the number of passengers and erred in law in applying the causation test.

The adjudicator dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no factual error and confirming that the correct legal test from Chisholm was applied, which established that the assault was an intervening act and the direct cause of the injuries, not the use or operation of the automobile.

The appellant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his appeal of a 90-day driver's licence suspension.

The suspension was imposed after he refused to provide a driver's licence or breath sample to police.

At the original hearing, the appellant argued he was not the individual to whom the demands were made, claiming he was 'more than one person.' The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the appellant failed to provide any cogent evidence or argument establishing a jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness, error of law or fact, or new evidence under Rule 18 of the Tribunal's Rules.

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

The suspension was initiated after a neurologist reported that the appellant suffered from cognitive impairment and obstructive sleep apnea following motor vehicle accidents.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's untreated sleep apnea and cognitive impairment, combined with his failure to complete a functional driving assessment, were likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

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

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

The applicant argued that her chronic back pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft-tissue in nature and fell squarely within the MIG, and that she failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition, a formal diagnosis of chronic pain, or a psychological impairment that would prevent maximal medical recovery within the MIG limits.

As the MIG funding was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a motion order that denied enforcement of a partial settlement on the basis that the Licence Appeal Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to apply contract law principles.

The Vice Chair granted the reconsideration, acknowledging an error of law.

Relying on recent appellate jurisprudence, the Vice Chair held that the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a binding settlement was reached regarding statutory accident benefits.

The parties were granted 30 days to make further submissions on the new case law.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his class G driver's licence due to alcohol withdrawal seizures and a severe substance abuse disorder.

The suspension was initiated following an unsolicited medical report from the appellant's treating physician.

Although the appellant demonstrated recent improvements, including six weeks of abstinence and normalized blood tests, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found this period insufficient to ensure the conditions were safely controlled.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal confirmed the suspension, requiring a longer period of abstinence and seizure-free status.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's boyfriend, whose licence was suspended, took the vehicle without her knowledge or consent while she was asleep.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act, as it was taken without consent with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner of it.

The Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

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

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

The applicant argued that chronic pain and psychological impairments, including Adjustment Disorder and Specific Phobia, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the physical injuries were soft-tissue in nature and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of functionally-disabling chronic pain or a diagnosable psychological impairment that would prevent maximal medical recovery within the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment and assessment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a Functional Abilities Evaluation, a chronic pain assessment, and a neurological assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove on a balance of probabilities that the requested assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed and no interest was awarded.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment determination and various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer requested a neuropsychological insurer's examination, which the applicant refused to attend.

The respondent raised preliminary issues arguing the applicant was barred from proceeding with the catastrophic impairment claim for failing to attend the examination, and barred from proceeding with the other benefits claims for missing the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal held that the neuropsychological examination was reasonably necessary and barred the catastrophic impairment claim until the applicant attends.

The Tribunal also found the remaining claims were statute-barred and declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

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

The respondent agreed the applicant qualified for IRB but disputed the quantum.

The applicant, who was self-employed, argued his IRB should be calculated based on his earnings in the 52 weeks prior to the accident.

The Tribunal found that under section 4(3) of the Schedule, a self-employed person's IRB must be calculated based on their income from the last completed taxation year.

Since the applicant declared no self-employment income in 2016, the last completed taxation year before the 2017 accident, his IRB entitlement was calculated at nil.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her vehicle after it was driven by her former partner whose licence was suspended.

The sole ground of appeal was exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that the exceptional hardship ground was unavailable under section 50.2(4) of the Highway Traffic Act because another vehicle owned by the appellant had been previously impounded under section 55.1.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her physical and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft-tissue in nature and that she failed to demonstrate functionally disabling pain or a diagnosable psychological condition requiring treatment beyond the MIG.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's expert reports, noting the applicant continued to work full-time and lacked corroborating medical evidence for her claims.

As the injuries fell within the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the claims for attendant care, medical benefits, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant, who was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident, applied for attendant care benefits in the amount of $3,790.38 per month.

The respondent partially approved the claim in the amount of $2,331.07 per month.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was not incurring expenses above the approved amount.

The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary issue, finding that a dispute exists over the quantum of the benefit regardless of whether it has been incurred.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant entitled to $2,997.30 per month in attendant care benefits, concluding that he requires 8 hours of attendant care daily.

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

The suspension was initiated after reports of erratic driving and uncontrolled diabetes, followed by a cerebellar stroke.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's multiple medical conditions, including diabetes, depression, obstructive sleep apnea, and previous stroke, had a cumulative effect on his functional ability to drive.

The Tribunal upheld the suspension, noting the appellant's failure to pass two functional driving assessments.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically an alleged alcohol use disorder.

The suspension followed a family doctor's report indicating alcohol dependence, submitted as part of the process to remove an ignition interlock device.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the respondent failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffered from an alcohol use disorder.

The Tribunal relied on the appellant's moderate drinking pattern, lack of withdrawal history, rapid normalization of biomedical markers upon abstaining, and three years of compliance with the ignition interlock device.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for 'alcohol abuse disorder'.

The suspension was based on a substance use assessment by the appellant's family doctor, which noted daily drinking and two prior impaired driving convictions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the doctor's conclusion was not supported by objective medical evidence, as the appellant's biochemical markers for alcohol abuse were within normal ranges.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence that his drinking was controlled and set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse her registration as a Category 2 gaming assistant under the Gaming Control Act.

The Registrar refused registration due to the appellant's failure to disclose her extensive criminal record on her application and concerns about her past conduct, which included multiple convictions and breaches of court orders over 25 years.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar met its burden of proving there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, honesty, or the public interest.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of registration was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her spouse drove it while his licence was suspended under the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen by her spouse and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the spouse taking the keys without permission did not meet the legal threshold for theft, and that the appellant did not suffer exceptional hardship because she had access to alternative transportation, including public transit and a rental car.