OLAT 2021

Both the appellants and the respondent sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding new home warranty claims.

The respondent argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by relying on video evidence concerning roof rainfall handling that had been exchanged prior to the hearing but never formally entered into evidence.

The adjudicator agreed, finding that relying on unadmitted evidence deprived the respondent of the opportunity to test or contradict it, thereby breaching procedural fairness.

The respondent's request was granted, and a re-hearing was ordered limited to the roof rainfall handling issue.

The appellants' cross-request for reconsideration, supported only by newly submitted photos and videos without written submissions, was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his vehicle under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after he was caught driving with a suspended Ontario driver's licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because he needed the vehicle for his construction work to support his family in Newfoundland.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that he had considered every reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, such as public transportation or renting a vehicle.

Furthermore, the financial loss was not lasting, and the impact was not upon a person ordinarily transported by the vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The parties reached a settlement and waived the requirement of a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order directing that the appellant be bound by the terms of the consent agreement, which imposes conditions on his registration for a period of three years.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motorcycle accident, including non-earner benefits (NEB), medical benefits for physiotherapy and massage therapy, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the NEB because his pain did not practically prevent him from engaging in his pre-accident activities.

However, the Tribunal granted the medical benefits for physiotherapy and massage therapy, finding them reasonable and necessary to address ongoing pain.

The Tribunal also awarded a 10% penalty under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer unreasonably delayed payment by denying treatment while simultaneously paying NEBs.

The applicant sought interest and a special award under Regulation 664 for delayed and suspended income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the insurer liable for interest for a brief period in 2018 when it failed to respond to the initial application within the required 10 days under s. 36 of the Schedule.

However, no interest was payable for 2019 as the applicant's self-employment income resulted in a zero IRB entitlement, and the applicant conceded to repaying a $20,856 overpayment for that year.

The Tribunal also awarded interest on a lump-sum back payment for a period in 2020 when benefits were temporarily suspended based on medical assessments but later reinstated.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, as the insurer actively and reasonably adjudicated the file based on the available medical evidence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) after the insurer terminated them.

The insurer argued the applicant's impairments were due to pre-existing degenerative disc disease and osteoarthritis.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome caused by the accident, applying the AMA Guides criteria.

Given her limited English, lack of higher education, and history of physically demanding work, the Tribunal concluded she met both the substantial inability test and the complete inability test.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the ongoing IRBs with interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the respondent insurer.

The adjudicator found that the applicant had returned to work on a full-time basis with unmodified duties prior to the start of her claim for IRBs.

The medical evidence, including the insurer's examinations, did not support a finding that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The application for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to non-earner benefits and various medical assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to consider evidence and that the respondent did not provide a proper denial.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal had properly analyzed the evidence, which primarily showed soft tissue injuries, and that no error of law or fact was made that would have led to a different result.

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 sought repayment of $7,120 for overpaid Income Replacement Benefits (IRB).

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and that he failed to prove chronic pain or psychological injuries warranting removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay the $7,120 in IRBs, finding he wilfully misrepresented his work status by continuing to collect benefits after returning to work.

The application for additional treatment plans and a special award was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied funding for an income replacement benefit multidisciplinary report.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by finding that procedural fairness does not apply to an insurer's administrative processes and by restrictively interpreting the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law, as procedural fairness is a public law doctrine inapplicable to insurers, and the Schedule clearly limits funding for such reports.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to submit her application within the 30-day timeline prescribed by section 32 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, submitting it over a year and a half late.

The respondent denied the claim due to the delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay under section 34, as her claim of latent injuries was contradicted by her examination under oath where she admitted to experiencing extreme back pain months before applying.

Consequently, the applicant was barred from proceeding with her claim pursuant to section 55(1)1 of the Schedule.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle, which occurred after his daughter was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because he needed the vehicle to attend out-of-town medical appointments for his severe COPD.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives available, including another vehicle owned by his spouse, rides from his granddaughter, and ride-sharing services.

Because alternatives were available, the Tribunal could not consider the financial hardship of the impoundment fees.

The applicant sought accident benefits for psychological treatment.

The insurer partially approved the treatment plan, paying the psychotherapist rate of $99.75 per hour instead of the claimed psychologist rate of $149.61 per hour, leaving a balance of $598.32.

The Tribunal found that the provider was an unregulated psychotherapist without specialized training in cognitive behavioural therapy, and the treatment plan did not propose such therapy.

The Tribunal held that the insurer's approved rate was reasonable and dismissed the claim for the balance.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar of Bailiffs to refuse the renewal of his registration as an assistant bailiff.

The Registrar alleged the appellant provided false information by answering 'no' to a question about pending criminal charges on his renewal application, when he was in fact facing a Criminal Code charge.

The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the appellant knowingly provided false information, rejecting his claim that the error was inadvertent.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the renewal.

The appellant appealed the downgrade of his commercial Class AZ driver's licence to a Class G licence by the Minister of Transportation for medical reasons.

The appellant had experienced an episode of unexplained syncope with bilateral visual loss while driving a tractor-trailer, resulting in a collision.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from unexplained syncope with bilateral visual loss, which is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision to change the class of the appellant's driver's licence.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of his vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing exceptional hardship.

The Registrar argued the appellant could not rely on exceptional hardship because his vehicle had been impounded within the past two years.

The Tribunal found that a previous impoundment occurred in June 2019, which precluded the exceptional hardship ground under s. 50.2(4) of the Highway Traffic Act, even though the related charge of driving while suspended was subsequently withdrawn.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence on medical grounds following a report indicating a substance use disorder and a psychiatric condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's bipolar disorder was stable and that she did not have an active substance use disorder that would significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision and ordered the reinstatement of the appellant's licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed her brother, an unlicensed driver, to drive.

The appellant argued exceptional hardship, citing her need for the vehicle for work as a nurse and daily life.

The Tribunal found that because the appellant was able to rent a vehicle, she had an alternative available and therefore did not meet the onus to demonstrate exceptional hardship.

The order of impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a real estate salesperson.

This was his second application, his first having been refused due to past misconduct involving a motor vehicle dealership.

The Tribunal found that the appellant met the requirements to re-apply, having shown a material change in circumstances through character evidence, further education, and stable employment in regulated industries.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant's current financial circumstances were stable, his past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds to believe he would act dishonestly in the future, and he did not intentionally make false statements on his application.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to register the appellant subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered that the Registrar withdraw the Notice of Proposal, the appellant withdraw his application, and the appellant may reapply after April 2, 2022, upon completing specified ethics courses.