OLAT 2022

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his class AZ commercial driver's licence to a class G licence due to cardiac disease and the insertion of an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD).

The Tribunal found that the ICD was inserted for secondary prophylaxis, which under CCMTA guidelines generally renders a driver ineligible for commercial licensing.

Given the serious nature of the condition and the lack of certification that the risk of arrhythmia was less than one percent per year, the Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision to downgrade the licence.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove a condition on its liquor licence that was originally imposed by the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission in 2010.

The Tribunal found that it has jurisdiction under section 11(4) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019 to remove conditions imposed by its predecessor adjudicative body.

As the original objectors had not received notice of the application, the Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to issue a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Remove the Condition, allowing the applicant to appeal and ensuring all interested parties could participate in a full hearing.

The appellant sought to appeal the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after his son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appeal was filed 19 days after the impoundment, outside the 15-day statutory period.

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

The Tribunal found the appellant lacked credibility and did not have a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, only deciding to appeal after learning the impoundment costs exceeded his expectations.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant appealed the suspension of her driver's licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on a medical report indicating cognitive impairment following a traumatic brain injury.

The Tribunal found that the appellant suffered from a traumatic brain injury and that the resulting cognitive impairment was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that partially granted attendant care and chiropractic benefits but dismissed the remaining claims.

The applicant argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by improperly weighing medical evidence and failing to provide sufficient reasons.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the original decision fully considered the evidence, provided adequate reasons, and contained no errors of law or fact.

The reconsideration request was deemed an attempt to re-litigate the issues.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought the cost of an accounting report used to calculate her income replacement benefit (IRB).

The insurer denied the cost, arguing the report was not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's IRB calculation as a salaried employee was straightforward and did not necessitate an accounting report.

Furthermore, the report was obtained prematurely before any dispute over IRB quantum or entitlement had arisen.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to an income replacement benefit because she failed to comply with section 57(2) of the Schedule by not engaging in recommended psychological treatment for her psychological impairments.

The Tribunal granted the claims for medical cannabis and occupational therapy services because the respondent failed to provide proper denial notices under section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The request for an electric mattress and elongated toilet was dismissed as the devices were found to be reasonable but not necessary.

A claim for chiropractic services was found payable directly to the treatment provider.

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

A three-day videoconference hearing was scheduled.

The applicant's counsel removed himself from the record prior to the hearing, and the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications.

The applicant did not attend the hearing.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement and failed to present evidence, the application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) after being denied by the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a Home Support Worker within 104 weeks of the accident, and a complete inability thereafter.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary onus, as the medical evidence did not support an occupational disability preventing her from performing her essential tasks.

The application for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing diabetes and hypertension prevented her recovery, or that she suffered from chronic pain or psychological impairments outside the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that found the applicant had refused to attend Insurer's Examinations but declined to grant a remedy due to non-compliant notices.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, holding that Rule 18.1 limits reconsiderations to decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

As the underlying decision was an interlocutory order adjourning the hearing, it did not satisfy the requirements for reconsideration.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired in a 2005 dirt bike accident, sought a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, alleging the respondent insurer acted in bad faith and unreasonably withheld attendant care and medical rehabilitation benefits.

The adjudicator found that the respondent reasonably relied on contemporaneous occupational therapy assessments to adjust and eventually discontinue attendant care benefits.

The applicant failed to prove what additional medical and rehabilitation benefits he ought to have received or that the respondent managed his file in bad faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed entitlement to a $2,260.00 treatment plan for psychological services, arguing that pre-existing anxiety and chronic pain removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft-tissue in nature and that she failed to establish a nexus between her pre-existing anxiety or chronic pain and the accident.

As the $3,500.00 MIG limit was already exhausted, the treatment plan was not payable and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's denial of several treatment plans (OCF-18s) and an expense for a mouth guard.

The Tribunal found that the insurer properly denied a $3,696.50 chiropractic treatment plan under s. 38(5) of the Schedule because the applicant was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline at the time.

The Tribunal partially approved a physiotherapy treatment plan for $199.50, finding it reasonable and necessary based on the recommendation of a chronic pain specialist.

The remaining treatment plans and expenses were dismissed as the applicant failed to discharge her evidentiary onus to demonstrate they were reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payment.

The self-represented applicant sought reconsideration of a motion order that dismissed her application for accident benefits due to her failure to attend a psychiatric insurer's examination.

The applicant argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over insurer's examinations under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, breached procedural fairness, and made factual and legal errors.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to apply the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to disputes, and that the applicant failed to establish any breach of procedural fairness or errors of fact or law that would warrant overturning the original decision.

The applicant's request for costs was also denied.

The applicant was catastrophically impaired in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRB).

The parties disputed the quantum of the IRB, specifically whether collateral benefits (STD, LTD, CPP-D) should be deducted on a gross or net basis, and the calculation of post-65 IRB.

The Tribunal held that deductions for collateral benefits under s. 4 of the Schedule are based on gross income, not net.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $4,872.90 in overpaid IRB.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's post-65 IRB should be calculated based on the base amount of $400 per week before the ramp-down formula in s. 8(1) is applied, resulting in $122.00 per week, rejecting the insurer's argument that it should be reduced to zero.

The appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant argued she was unaware of her right to appeal until after the 15-day statutory deadline had passed.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, noted prejudice to the respondent regarding impoundment fees, and concluded the appeal lacked merit as there was insufficient evidence to support the appellant's claim that the vehicle had been stolen.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The applicant applied for a liquor sales licence for premises in Leamington.

The Municipality of Leamington objected, arguing that the applicant was acting in concert with the property owner, who had a significant history of non-compliance with municipal and provincial laws, including fire safety violations.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review, and the applicant requested a hearing.

The Tribunal found that while the property owner's past compliance record was poor, the evidence was insufficient to prove on a balance of probabilities that the applicant and the property owner were acting in concert.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence.

Dr. Heap, an added party, brought a motion to reconsider a previous decision denying party status to Western University and Muhammed Hamou, and to extend deadlines for witness statements.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion for reconsideration because the previous decision was not a final order and Dr. Heap failed to follow procedural steps.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request for an extension of time, noting that Dr. Heap had already been granted an extension and further delay would prejudice the appellant, 7-Eleven Canada Inc.

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

The respondent denied claims for a psychological assessment and physiotherapy services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and failed to prove that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological impairments removed her from the MIG.

As the applicant had already been approved for the $3,500 funding limit, she was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, interest, or an award.