OLAT 2021

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

The respondent insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and refused to fund certain treatment plans.

The applicant argued that pre-existing back pain and sciatica from prior accidents precluded her recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal found no compelling evidence that the pre-existing conditions prevented recovery, noting objective medical evidence and inconsistencies in the applicant's self-reporting to assessors.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained minor injuries, was subject to the $3,500 funding limit, and dismissed the claims for additional treatment and assessments as the limit was exhausted.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor sprains and strains, and his pre-existing age-related conditions did not preclude recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of accident-related chronic pain causing functional impairment or psychological impairment.

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

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG due to ongoing pain and potential need for a chronic pain program.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor sprains and strains, and there was insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition, chronic pain with functional impairment, or psychological injury to warrant removal from the MIG.

As the applicant had not exhausted the MIG limits, the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for a section 10 award and interest were also dismissed.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the appellant's registration as a real estate salesperson due to past conduct, false statements, and financial irresponsibility.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration, but permitted the appellant to apply for reinstatement after May 28, 2022, subject to completing specified educational courses.

The applicant sought $10,200.00 for a multidisciplinary report to rebut the respondent's termination of his income replacement benefit.

The applicant argued that procedural fairness and section 25 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule entitled him to an insurer-funded rebuttal report.

The Tribunal held that the Schedule does not provide for the funding of rebuttal reports for income replacement benefit determinations, noting that section 25(1)5 specifically applies to catastrophic impairment applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the respondent was not liable for the cost of the assessment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her all-terrain vehicle (ATV) under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The ATV was impounded after the appellant's son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she relied on the ATV to care for her chickens and perform chores on her rural property, and her physical limitations prevented her from using her other vehicle or doing the work manually.

The Tribunal found that there was no reasonable alternative to the ATV and that the impoundment posed a threat to the appellant's physical and mental health.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the ATV.

The appellant appealed an order to pay a $2,500 administrative penalty issued by the Registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority for allegedly failing to report suspected neglect and failing to prevent the neglect of a resident.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order rescinding the finding that the appellant failed to report suspected neglect under s. 75(1) of the Retirement Homes Act, 2010, and closed the file.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his onus of proving that the proposed chiropractic treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant provided insufficient medical evidence to establish his accident-related physical injuries, particularly given a pre-existing back condition and a two-year gap in medical records following the accident.

The application was dismissed, and no interest or costs were awarded.

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

The suspension was based on a physician's report indicating the appellant suffered from alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant continued to drink heavily, lacked insight into his addiction, and had admitted to driving while drunk in the past.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's alcohol use disorder was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

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

The vehicle was impounded because the driver was subject to an ignition interlock condition and the vehicle lacked the device.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she was able to rely on friends, family, and taxis for transportation and childcare.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order was confirmed.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove she sustained a concussion or chronic pain that would remove her from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide the disputed treatment plans or sufficient medical evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant builder sought an extension of time to appeal a Notice of Proposal to refuse its registration.

The proposal was issued because the applicant failed to provide required financial security.

The applicant missed the 15-day appeal deadline by 36 days, attributing the delay to illness and a change of address.

The Tribunal found that the applicant maintained a firm intention to appeal, the delay was relatively brief, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The motion to extend the time to appeal was granted, but the applicant remains un-licensed pending the hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship and that she exercised due diligence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had alternative transportation options available, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she knew of her son's prior suspension but made no inquiries to confirm his licence had been reinstated before allowing him to drive.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order refusing his application for a Driver and Trainer licence under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015.

The Registrar refused the application based on the appellant's lengthy and serious criminal history, arguing it provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty, integrity, or in the public interest.

The appellant presented evidence of recent honest participation in the Quebec horse racing industry and argued he had broken from his criminal past.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had made positive steps, insufficient time had passed since his last serious criminal conviction to overcome the reasonable grounds for refusal.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's proposal to refuse the licences.

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 followed a medical report indicating the appellant suffered a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffered from a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal, noting his chronic alcohol consumption and the circumstances of the episode.

The Tribunal further found that this condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, given the risk of sudden loss of consciousness and the appellant's lack of insight into his condition.

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

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar alleged the appellant submitted false documents to OMVIC, the MTO, and an auto auction, and engaged in unregistered trading ('curbsiding') of salvage vehicles without disclosing their history to buyers.

The Tribunal found the Registrar proved the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant's conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal declined to impose conditions and directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to refuse registration.

The self-represented applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he was not catastrophically impaired and that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred by not giving sufficient weight to the OCF-19 completed by his family physician.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding the adjudicator properly weighed the evidence, including the respondent's expert reports, and made no error of law or fact.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant entitled to three chiropractic treatment plans due to the insurer's failure to comply with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The insurer argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness and made errors of law by imposing requirements beyond binding case law.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness as the insurer had a full opportunity to present its case.

Furthermore, the adjudicator held that the denial letters were boilerplate and failed to provide specific details about the applicant's condition, thus failing to meet the requirements of s. 38(8) and binding jurisprudence.

The applicants claimed statutory accident benefits for psychological injuries sustained after witnessing a vehicle strike their relative.

They did not have their own auto insurance policy and claimed under the policy of the driver who struck their relative.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicants were not 'involved' in the accident as defined by section 3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, as they were merely bystanders who witnessed the accident and its aftermath.

Furthermore, they were not entitled to make a 'nervous shock' claim under the driver's policy because they were not named insureds or relatives of the named insured.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant sought dispute resolution at the Licence Appeal Tribunal after the respondent insurer denied various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was barred from proceeding with several claims due to her unexcused failure to attend scheduled insurer's examinations.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that the proposed physiotherapy, assessments, and additional psychological therapy were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.