OLAT 2021

The applicant, injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought interim benefits pending a hearing on whether he was catastrophically impaired.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award interim benefits under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Legislature deliberately removed provisions relating to interim orders from the Insurance Act and that no regulation currently grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to order interim benefits.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties waived the requirement for a hearing and agreed to a Consent Order imposing conditions on the appellants' registration.

The conditions require compliance with the Act, disclosure of changes in officers or directors, and restrictions related to Garry Letichever.

Subject to these conditions, the registrations of Auto Quest Group and Yana Letichever will continue.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was impounded because her driver's licence was suspended under the Criminal Code.

She sought the release of the vehicle on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including two other vehicles she owned and the use of a bicycle for transportation to work.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The respondent denied non-earner benefits (NEB) and determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim for NEB was statute-barred because she failed to dispute the clear and unequivocal denial within the two-year limitation period, and she did not establish grounds for an extension under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG, as she failed to provide compelling medical evidence of chronic pain or a pre-existing condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Since the $3,500 MIG limit had already been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $400 per week from February 2018 onwards, along with interest and an award for unreasonable withholding of benefits.

The respondent insurer had terminated the IRB based on insurer's examinations concluding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a construction labourer.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he met the pre-104 week disability test.

The application was dismissed, and no IRB, interest, or award was payable.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her boyfriend drove it while his licence was subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship, as she had access to alternative transportation, including another leased vehicle.

The Tribunal also found she failed to exercise due diligence by relying on her boyfriend's claim about his licence condition rather than verifying it independently.

The impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the suspension of her driver's licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for medical reasons.

The Registrar suspended the licence after receiving a Medical Condition Report indicating the appellant suffered from alcohol use disorder and a mental health condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant lives with alcohol use disorder and bipolar disorder, and that she lacks insight into her conditions and is non-compliant with treatment.

The Tribunal concluded that these conditions are likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to pre-existing knee injuries, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing conditions precluded recovery under the MIG, failed to establish functional impairment from chronic pain, and failed to prove a psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment which noted invalid testing and feigning of symptoms.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2003 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent requested a preliminary issues hearing to dismiss the application on grounds of res judicata, expiry of the limitation period, and failure to attend insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found that the claims for caregiver and non-earner benefits had already been denied in a 2013 FSCO decision and were res judicata.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the application was statute-barred as it was filed more than two years after the respondent's clear and unequivocal denial in 2018.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period, finding no bona fide intention to appeal, excessive delay, and incurable prejudice to the respondent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $2,028.78 for physiotherapy under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant claimed he sustained a shoulder injury from providing massage and care to his wife, who was injured in an automobile accident three years prior.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not involved in an accident and the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the 'but for' test for causation, as his injury was not directly caused by an automobile accident.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after it was stopped while being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained.

The Tribunal found that the driver took the vehicle without the appellant's consent and with the intent to deprive him of it, at least temporarily.

The appeal was granted and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident and subsequent knee surgery.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life for the claimed period, as contemporaneous medical evidence indicated excellent recovery.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant no longer required attendant care services during the disputed period and failed to prove the expenses were incurred.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her son was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition on his licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to confirm her son's licence status and failed to prove there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and medical/rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits and sought repayment of IRB previously paid, alleging the applicant had returned to work and wilfully misrepresented his employment status.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had returned to his pre-accident employment shortly after the accident and failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $1,619.99 in overpaid IRB due to his wilful misrepresentation.

The claims for psychological services and various medical assessments were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

The Registrar revoked the appellant's security guard licence and the appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Registrar brought a motion for directions, arguing the appeal should proceed on the record rather than as a hearing de novo.

The Tribunal found that because the Registrar provided extremely brief reasons and no evidentiary record, an appeal on the record was practically precluded.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeal proceed with a hearing of evidence, with the Registrar presenting its evidence first.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

He failed to submit his application within the 30-day time limit prescribed by the Schedule, submitting it nearly two years later.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not have a reasonable explanation for the delay, rejecting his claim that a difficult property damage settlement prevented him from applying.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the driver had implied consent to use the vehicle, no reasonable steps were taken to verify the driver's licence status, and alternatives to the impounded vehicle were available, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the chiropractic treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence and reliance on the treatment plans themselves.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's s. 44 assessment reports which concluded further facility-based treatment would not provide substantive benefit for the applicant's soft-tissue injuries.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for psychological treatment, finding the applicant failed to respond to the insurer's request for further information under s. 33 of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants, having successfully appealed the denial of their claims for compensation from the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Compensation Fund, sought costs against the respondent Board.

They argued the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith by alleging at the hearing that their claims were false.

The Tribunal dismissed the costs application, finding that the respondent's challenge to the appellants' credibility was not unreasonable given the lack of documentary proof and other anomalies in their claims.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's conduct did not meet the threshold for a costs award under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that barred him from proceeding with claims for a non-earner benefit, attendant care assessment, and treatment plans due to his failure to attend Insurer's Examinations.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it did not comply with Rule 18 as the preliminary decision did not finally dispose of the application.

In the alternative, the Tribunal found no error of law or fact in the original decision's finding that the insurer provided sufficient medical reasons for the examinations.