OLAT 2021

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after her partner was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She filed an appeal 16 days after the 15-day appeal period expired and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Tribunal found she lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, as she had the impoundment form but did not review it.

The Tribunal also found her proposed grounds of appeal—that the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship—had a very weak chance of success.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his soft tissue injuries and headaches prevented him from engaging in his pre-accident activities, including camping, hunting, fishing, and volunteering.

The respondent denied the benefits based on insurer examinations.

The Tribunal applied the Heath framework and found the applicant credible, noting that his pre-existing conditions made him more susceptible to functional impairment from the accident.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the respondent's medical expert who claimed the applicant could perform all pre-accident activities, as the expert failed to list those activities or account for the pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life and awarded non-earner benefits and interest, but dismissed the claim for a special award under Regulation 664.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for assistive devices and laser foot therapy under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary and were related to pre-existing conditions rather than the accident.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and found that the applicant failed to prove the requested treatments and devices were required due to accident-related impairments.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's mobility and balance issues were pre-existing, and the foot numbness was related to prior chemotherapy.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services and a neurological assessment, which the insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing fibromyalgia was exacerbated by the accident, making the chiropractic treatment plan reasonable and necessary for pain management.

However, the Tribunal denied the neurological assessment, relying on an insurer's examination and the applicant's own treating neurologists who found no neurological structural disease.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the chiropractic services and interest.

The applicant, a pedestrian injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits for vision impairments.

The respondent insurer denied treatment plans for visual training and therapeutic glasses, arguing the vision issues were pre-existing and not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's vision impairments were caused or exacerbated by the accident, preferring the evidence of her treating practitioners over the respondent's neurological assessor.

The Tribunal concluded that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, and ordered the respondent to pay for them with interest.

The applicant sought payment for a physiotherapy treatment plan in the amount of $2,580.63 following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit, stating that the injuries should have reached maximum medical recovery after two years.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial did not provide proper medical reasons as required by s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Consequently, under s. 38(11), the respondent was ordered to pay for the treatment plan.

The Tribunal also awarded $250.00 under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 for the respondent's unreasonable delay and deficient notice.

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

The insurer paid the statutory maximum of $400 per week and subsequently reduced the quantum to $16 per week after the applicant turned 65, applying the statutory 'ramp down' formula.

The applicant disputed the calculations, arguing for a higher quantum based on his annualized pre-accident income and challenging the constitutionality of the Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the insurer correctly calculated the initial IRB at the statutory maximum and properly applied the ramp down formula.

The constitutional claims were dismissed for failure to serve a Notice of Constitutional Question.

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

The respondent determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied several treatment plans.

The applicant argued his injuries were not minor and that a pre-existing condition from a 2016 accident removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy, medical services, and assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The insurer denied the claims between 2015 and 2017.

The applicant filed an application with the Tribunal in August 2019, well beyond the two-year limitation period.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the application was statute-barred under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denial notices were clear and unequivocal, meeting the requirements set out in Smith v. Co-Operators.

The Tribunal also declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the LAT Act, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, significant delay, and prejudice to the insurer.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his self-employment as a general contractor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's right rotator cuff tear was a pre-existing condition, not caused by the accident.

Due to significant inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence regarding his return to work and prior medical history, the Tribunal found his self-reports lacked credibility.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks, and dismissed the application for IRBs and interest.

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

The insurer scheduled section 44 insurer's examinations, which the applicant refused to attend because she objected to a check box on the clinic's consent form requiring confirmation that she provided photo identification.

The Tribunal found the insurer's consent form requirement to be reasonable and the applicant's refusal to attend unreasonable.

Consequently, the applicant is statute-barred under section 55 of the Schedule from proceeding with her application until she attends the examinations.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for an income replacement benefit.

The respondent denied the benefit, arguing the applicant was self-employed as a partner in her husband's television and stereo repair shop.

The Tribunal held a preliminary issue hearing to determine her employment status.

Applying the test for partnership from Backman v. Canada, the Tribunal found no evidence of a partnership agreement or intention to carry on business in common.

The official corporate records, tax filings, and payroll deductions supported the applicant's position that she was an employee.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was employed, not self-employed, at the time of the accident.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had access to a second leased vehicle (a van) and her son could find other ways to commute to work.

Furthermore, the Tribunal 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 applicant sought accident benefits for physiotherapy and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate that her soft-tissue injuries, lingering pain, or alleged psychological distress warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a $2,384.58 physiotherapy treatment plan because the applicant failed to submit the required OCF-21 invoice.

All claims, including the request for a section 10 award, were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently went on maternity leave, receiving Employment Insurance (EI) maternity benefits.

The insurer conceded entitlement to Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) but sought to deduct the EI maternity benefits and available employer top-up amounts from the IRB quantum.

The Tribunal held that EI maternity benefits and employer top-ups fall within the definition of 'gross employment income' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and are therefore deductible from IRBs.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was entitled to interest on overdue IRBs but dismissed the claim for a special award, noting the delay was due to the applicant's failure to provide requested employment documentation.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a suspended driver.

She argued that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine the driver's licence status and that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's evidence regarding due diligence to be vague and inconsistent, and concluding she failed to take all reasonable care to ensure the driver had a valid licence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle for her medical and personal needs.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 90 days after he was caught driving while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

He filed an appeal of the impoundment approximately two months after the 15-day deadline had passed.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant, the respondent would be prejudiced, and the appeal lacked merit because the stay of his driving prohibition was not retroactive to the date of the impoundment.

The motion to extend the time was denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for medical benefits on the basis that she had reached maximum medical improvement.

The applicant alleged errors of law, errors of fact, and a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal test, its factual findings were supported by the evidence, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias in its determination that the insurer acted in good faith.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her appeal for the return of a deposit on a condominium unit.

The appellant argued that new evidence was available under Rule 18.2(d) of the Tribunal's Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was attempting to relitigate previous court and Tribunal findings that she, not the vendor, breached the agreement of purchase and sale.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, concluding that the appellant failed to present any new evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier or that would likely have affected the result.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen at the time it was driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to satisfy her onus to prove the vehicle was stolen.