OLAT 2021

The appellant, a licensed funeral director, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his licence and an immediate suspension order issued by the Registrar.

The Registrar alleged the appellant failed to comply with COVID-19 public health requirements, including face mask mandates and a directive to implement a staff vaccine policy.

The Tribunal held an interim hearing to determine whether to extend the suspension order until the conclusion of the main appeal hearing.

Finding credible information that the appellant failed to comply with the Registrar's directive and public health measures, the Tribunal concluded that extending the suspension was in the public interest to protect vulnerable attendees at funeral establishments.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to apply conditions to his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar argued that the appellant's past conduct, including acting as an unregistered salesperson and dealer, and his involvement in a dealership's failure to pay out liens, afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant's past conduct established reasonable grounds for concern, the public interest could be adequately protected by granting registration subject to the conditions proposed by the Registrar for a period of four years.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to grant his motor vehicle salesperson registration with conditions.

The appellant argued that a 2017 Consent Order prevented the Registrar from considering his past conduct prior to 2017, and that any breaches of the Act were the fault of an unregistered salesperson who defrauded him.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that issue estoppel did not apply and the 2017 Consent Order was not binding because the appellant never registered under it.

The Tribunal held that the appellant's past conduct, including failing to discharge liens, failing to remit warranties, and employing an unregistered salesperson, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was ordered to carry out the proposal to grant registration with conditions.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after his son was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because his daughter needed the vehicle to commute to university.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that viable alternatives existed, such as online classes, ridesharing, and using the household's three other vehicles, and that the situation amounted to inconvenience rather than exceptional hardship.

The applicant, a convenience store owner and cashier, sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer terminated the benefits after eight months.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

Medical evidence, including insurer examinations, indicated she retained reasonable physical function and her essential tasks were primarily administrative or light physical work.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and initially returned to work, resulting in the respondent denying his claim for an income replacement benefit.

Nearly five years later, the applicant stopped working and submitted a new disability certificate, which the respondent denied as statute-barred under the two-year limitation period in section 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal held that the principle of discoverability applied, as the applicant could not have discovered his claim while working.

In the alternative, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999 to extend the limitation period, finding the applicant's delay reasonable and the prejudice to the respondent minimal.

The preliminary issue was dismissed, allowing the claim to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chiropractic services and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and that ongoing physical therapy beyond May 2019 was not reasonable and necessary, relying on the opinions of the respondent's medical assessors.

The Tribunal awarded the first two treatment plans for chiropractic care totaling $5,006.42 plus interest, but denied the remaining plans and the chronic pain assessment as duplicative and unnecessary.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident and remains in a persistent vegetative state, sought funding for occupational therapy and a speech-language therapy assessment.

The respondent denied the treatments as not reasonable and necessary.

Prior to the decision, the respondent agreed to pay for the speech-language assessment.

The Tribunal found that the occupational therapy services were reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's potential for improvement and the relatively minor cost of the treatment plan.

The applicant was awarded the balance of the occupational therapy services and interest on overdue amounts.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding that the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) and Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) were deductible from his Income Replacement Benefit (IRB).

Both parties agreed that the original adjudicator erred in law.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that CRB/CERB are not calculated with reference to income from employment, are not 'gross employment income', and are not akin to Employment Insurance benefits.

Therefore, they are not deductible from IRBs under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and did not warrant removal from the MIG, dismissing claims for physiotherapy, chiropractic services, and orthopaedic/neurological assessments.

However, the Tribunal preferred the applicant's psychological evidence over the respondent's section 44 assessor, finding that the applicant suffered from severe depression and anxiety directly resulting from the accident.

Consequently, the applicant was removed from the MIG on psychological grounds, and the treatment plans for a psychological assessment and psychological treatment were deemed reasonable and necessary, with interest payable.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse a registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement agreement and applied for a Consent Order without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the request and ordered that the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement be incorporated into the Order, concluding the matter.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied disputed treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by failing to properly consider evidence of chronic pain, psychological symptoms, and pre-accident activities.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue the evidence and that the original decision contained no significant legal or evidentiary mistakes warranting reconsideration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying him an income replacement benefit.

He argued the Tribunal erred in law by improperly applying the but-for test and erred in fact by placing too much weight on his pre-existing condition rather than his experts' opinions regarding his chronic pain syndrome.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the but-for test was properly applied to determine causation and that the weighing of evidence was within the hearing adjudicator's prerogative.

The appellant, a sports pub, appealed a Notice of Proposal and an Order of the Registrar to immediately suspend and revoke its liquor licence.

The Registrar's actions were based on the appellant's deliberate refusal to comply with public health requirements under the Reopening Ontario Act, including mask mandates, proof of vaccination, and contact tracing.

The appellant argued the requirements were voluntary and conflicted with the Canadian Bill of Rights and other laws.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal rejected these arguments, finding the requirements mandatory and valid provincial law.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's past and present conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that it would not carry on business in accordance with the law.

Given the appellant's unequivocal refusal to comply with the law, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the liquor licence.

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

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's past conduct, specifically his 2020 convictions for evading income tax and failing to remit HST during the 2014 and 2015 tax years while employed as a general manager of a registered dealer.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's willful and sophisticated scheme to evade over $117,000 in taxes constituted a breach of trust and demonstrated a willingness to contravene the law for personal financial gain.

The Tribunal concluded that this past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

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

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under the Highway Traffic Act for medical reasons, specifically a mental health condition, substance use disorder, and visual impairment.

The Tribunal first determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal regarding the visual impairment suspension under s. 32(5)(b)(ii).

On the merits of the s. 47(1) suspension, the Tribunal found that while the appellant's bipolar disorder and cannabis use had recently stabilized with new medication, a longer period of stability and further medical verification were required to ensure he could drive safely.

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

The moving party brought a motion to extend the time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded after the moving party's friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appeal was filed 34 days after the 15-day deadline.

Applying the four-factor test for extending time, the Tribunal found the moving party lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant and prejudicial to the respondent, and the proposed appeal lacked merit as the moving party failed to demonstrate due diligence in verifying the driver's licence status.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant's golf cart was impounded after his son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed an appeal 57 days after the 15-day deadline expired and brought a motion to extend the time.

The Registrar brought a motion challenging the appellant's standing to appeal, arguing that because a golf cart cannot be registered, there is no 'owner' under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the Registrar's motion, finding that the actual owner of an unregistered vehicle has standing to appeal.

However, the Tribunal denied the appellant's motion for an extension of time, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, significant unexplained delay, prejudice to the Registrar, and little merit to the appeal based on exceptional hardship.

The appellant purchased a used vehicle 'as is' from a dealer.

After discovering an oil leak, the appellant sought compensation from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund.

The Board of Trustees denied the claim.

On appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet the strict criteria set out in s. 79(3) of Regulation 333/08, as there was no evidence the purchasers told the dealer it was material to the transaction that the vehicle had no conditions that might result in an oil leak.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration as a salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The parties agreed to resolve the matter without a hearing and submitted Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal issued a Consent Order suspending the appellant's registration for 12 months, subject to conditions including counselling, educational courses, and strict supervision upon return to practice.