OLAT 2021

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a motor vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after being operated by a suspended driver.

The appellant missed the 15-day appeal deadline by 10 days due to technical difficulties with fax and email, and incorrect information regarding her grounds for appeal.

Applying the factors from Manuel v. Registrar, the Tribunal found the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was short, prejudice to the respondent was minimal, and the appeal had merit based on the 'stolen vehicle' ground.

The motion to extend the time to file the appeal was granted.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying income replacement benefits and various treatment plans on the basis that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the adjudicator made significant errors of law and fact in weighing the medical evidence regarding his physical limitations, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no errors of law or fact in the original decision.

The adjudicator reaffirmed that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving his injuries fell outside the MIG or that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle had been stolen at the time it was impounded.

The vehicle was driven by the appellant's ex-spouse, whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence regarding the alleged theft to be unreliable and inconsistent, while accepting the police officer's evidence that the vehicle had not been reported stolen and the driver had prior access to it.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the Registrar's proposal to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered the termination of the dealer's registration and imposed a five-year conditional registration on the individual registrant as a salesperson, along with requirements to complete a certification course and pay outstanding restitution for a prior Consumer Protection Act conviction.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had an alternative vehicle available, as his spouse owned a vehicle that they were using for transportation.

The Tribunal also found no threat to health or safety and no immediate, significant, and lasting economic loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle salesperson and motor vehicle dealerships.

The Registrar alleged that the appellants failed to disclose previous accident damage to consumers, falsified bills of sale, failed to return deposits, and provided false statements on registration renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants engaged in a pattern of deception intended to avoid disclosure obligations, which afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The appellant appealed the 90-day suspension of his driver's licence under s. 50.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing he was unable to provide a breath sample due to a medical condition (a maxillary sinus fracture sustained in a motor vehicle accident).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence, which consisted of an emergency room note from 18 hours after the incident, did not establish that the appellant was physically unable to provide a breath sample at the time the demand was made.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant sought $6,061.48 from the Travel Compensation Fund after his airline ceased operations, leaving him and his family stranded in Kosovo.

TICO reimbursed $1,180, representing the unused return portion of the tickets not already refunded by the appellant's credit card.

The appellant appealed, seeking the full cost of the original round-trip tickets and the replacement tickets.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that under Ontario Regulation 26/05, the Fund only covers travel services paid for but not provided, and expressly excludes reimbursement for alternate travel services, consequential damages, or amounts already reimbursed by a credit card.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in April 2016 but did not notify the respondent insurer or submit an application for accident benefits until June 2019, over three years later.

The respondent denied the claim due to the delay.

In a preliminary issue hearing, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay under section 34 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation, noting he had legal representation for his long-term disability claim shortly after the accident and that ignorance of the law is not a reasonable excuse.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including reports from physiatrists and a psychologist, confirmed the applicant sustained soft tissue injuries consistent with the MIG.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-accident medical records documented severe pain, limitation of function, and substance abuse, contradicting her claims of pre-accident independence and well-managed symptoms.

Surveillance evidence and medical reports also indicated she was able to perform various activities post-accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of the accident and dismissed the application.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a 90-day vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by the appellant's ex-boyfriend, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued she initially believed the impoundment was for 45 days and only formed the intention to appeal upon learning it was for 90 days, after the appeal period had expired.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds for the delay, noting institutional delay in processing mail, and granted the extension of time.

A case conference was subsequently held to schedule the hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty imposing two penalties: $10,000 for permitting disorderly conduct and $15,000 for failing to facilitate an inspection.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's principal was aggressive and uncooperative during an after-hours inspection, failing to facilitate it in violation of s. 45(2) of the Liquor Licence Act.

However, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the licensee permitted the disorderly conduct of patrons under s. 45(1) of the Regulation.

The $15,000 penalty was confirmed, and the $10,000 penalty was set aside.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence following a medical report indicating he had suffered a seizure.

The Ministry required a five-year seizure-free period before reinstating his commercial licence, based on medical records suggesting a prior seizure and a diagnosis of epilepsy.

The appellant argued he had only experienced one seizure and disputed the accuracy of hospital triage notes referencing a prior seizure.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence reliably established the appellant had suffered at least two unprovoked seizures, meeting the standard for epilepsy.

Given the risk of recurrence and the short period since his last seizure, the Tribunal concluded his condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a commercial vehicle and confirmed the licence downgrade.

The appellant filed a motion to extend the time to appeal the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after her friend, who allegedly had a suspended license, was stopped by police while driving.

The appellant delayed filing the appeal due to financial hardship, having lost her job and being unable to afford the filing fee until she received Employment Insurance.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that, despite the delay and prejudice to the respondent, the justice of the case required granting the extension.

The motion was granted and the appeal was ordered to proceed directly to a hearing.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found the applicant entitled to various treatment plans, including chiropractic treatment, an attendant care assessment, a chronic pain assessment, and a psychological assessment.

The insurer argued that the Tribunal erred in law by applying incorrect tests to determine whether the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying too heavily on the applicant's subjective reporting.

The adjudicator dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the Tribunal had properly applied the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, considered the evidence in its totality (including objective medical evidence), and made no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic brain injury in a motorcycle accident, sought $7,017.40 for the unapproved portion of a home modification assessment treatment plan.

The insurer had partially approved the plan up to the $2,000 cap for assessments.

The Tribunal found that the home modification assessment involved an appraisal of the applicant's health status and functional limitations, and was therefore subject to the $2,000 cap under s. 25(5)(a) of the Schedule.

The application for the unapproved balance and interest was dismissed.

The applicant, who was 11 years old at the time of the motor vehicle accident, sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits outside the Minor Injury Guideline.

The adjudicator found that the applicant established entitlement to a treatment plan for physiotherapy and chiropractic services, as they were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

However, the remaining benefits for occupational therapy and psychological assessments were denied because they either exceeded the maximum amount payable for an assessment or were not supported by objective medical evidence from qualified practitioners.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's friend, who was driving, was found to have a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that while the impoundment caused financial stress and inconvenience, the appellant failed to demonstrate that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she was able to use Uber, walk, and receive assistance from family members.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded because it lacked an ignition interlock device, contrary to a condition on the driver's licence.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal four days after the 15-day deadline and failed to file a Notice of Motion for an extension of time or attend the scheduled teleconference motion hearing.

The Tribunal considered the merits of the motion in the appellant's absence and found that the justice of the case did not warrant an extension, as there was no evidence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the timeline, prejudice to the respondent existed, and the appeal lacked a reasonable chance of success.

The motion to extend the time to appeal was dismissed.