OLAT 2022

The appellant towing company appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, which cancelled its Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration certificate and seized its commercial vehicle plates.

At the outset of the hearing, the parties settled all outstanding issues and the appellant withdrew its appeal.

The Tribunal closed the file.

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

The insurer denied several treatment and assessment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained psychological injuries that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for the disputed psychological, physiotherapy, and chronic pain assessments and treatments, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for an award under Regulation 664 was dismissed because the insurer reasonably relied on its assessors' reports.

The applicant sought medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits and requested an insurer's examination, which the applicant failed to attend.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with her application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to attend the required examination and provided no explanation for her non-attendance.

Consequently, pursuant to section 55(1)2 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the applicant was precluded from proceeding with her application.

The applicant sought entitlement to a non-earner benefit and various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was statute-barred from claiming the non-earner benefit and several treatment plans because she failed to attend required section 44 insurer's examinations prior to applying to the Tribunal.

The remaining treatment plans were denied because they were either incurred before submission or the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his class BM commercial driver's licence to a class G licence due to a diagnosis of syncope.

The appellant argued that the syncope was caused by a recent vaccination or an increase in blood pressure medication, and that he had been symptom-free since stopping the medication.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's condition was not yet stable and that the 12-month syncope-free period recommended by the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers was appropriate given the risks associated with driving a commercial vehicle.

The Minister's decision to downgrade the licence was confirmed.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the registrations of a real estate broker and his brokerage under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Tribunal found that the broker had misappropriated trust funds, falsified bank statements, engaged in abusive and unprofessional communications with clients and the regulator, and made false statements on a registration application.

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

Finding that conditions would not sufficiently protect the public, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to revoke the registrations.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological injuries sustained after he parked his vehicle in someone else's spot, resulting in his vehicle being vandalized and him being verbally assaulted.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while parking is an ordinary use of a vehicle, the causation test was not met.

The vandalism and verbal assault were intervening acts that occurred after the use of the vehicle had ended.

The application was dismissed.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the cannabis retail operator licence of Havok Global Limited and the cannabis retail manager licence of Dr. Gerald Goldlist, alleging past conduct issues involving Dr. Goldlist and his son, Michael.

The Tribunal found no reasonable grounds to believe Dr. Goldlist would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, or the public interest, noting his 45-year unblemished career as a physician and accepting his explanation regarding a 2018 break-in at an illegal dispensary.

The Tribunal also found that Michael was not an 'interested person' in Havok, as he had no beneficial interest, control, or financing role in the business.

The notices of proposal to revoke the licences were set aside.

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

The vehicle was impounded because it was driven by an individual whose licence was suspended and subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant filed her notice of motion 65 days after the statutory appeal period expired.

The Tribunal found no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, a considerable delay, and that the appeal lacked merit as the appellant failed to establish due diligence.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on medical reports indicating the appellant suffered from an unstable mental health condition, including a hospital admission for bizarre behaviour and a discharge diagnosis of an unspecified psychotic disorder.

The appellant denied having a mental health condition, refused to answer questions about her medical history, and failed to provide a completed mental health assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, noting her lack of insight and failure to meet CCMTA relicensing standards.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment on the ground of exceptional hardship, arguing she needed the vehicle to assist her immune-compromised daughter.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that there were no reasonable alternative transportation options available, such as using her husband's or sister's vehicle, or taking a taxi or Uber.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied funding for two physiotherapy treatment plans.

The applicant argued he sustained a concussion and chronic pain, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence, including hospital records and employment records, did not support a non-minor injury diagnosis.

The applicant was held to the MIG limit, which was already exhausted, and his claims for the treatment plans, an award, and costs were dismissed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her ex-husband was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed an appeal 10 days after the 15-day statutory deadline and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test for extending time and found the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant without satisfactory justification, and the appeal lacked merit as she failed to establish due diligence or exceptional hardship.

The motion to extend time was denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a marked impairment (Class 4) in Adaptation, qualifying her for catastrophic impairment status.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits, professional organizing services, and vision therapy, but denied aquatherapy sessions.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for a special award under Regulation 664, finding the insurer's denials were not unreasonable.

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans and a disability certificate.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was statute-barred from pursuing claims for three treatment plans because she failed to commence proceedings within two years of the insurer's clear and sufficient denials.

The Tribunal further held that the remaining treatment plans and the disability certificate were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support them and the proposed fees did not comply with the Professional Services Guideline.

The claim for an award under Regulation 664 was also dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic treatments, psychological services, a social work assessment, and a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and denied the chiropractic treatments.

The Tribunal also denied the social work and chronic pain assessments, finding the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain syndrome.

However, the Tribunal partially approved one psychological treatment plan, reducing the hourly rate as the services were provided by a social worker rather than a psychologist.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a friend with a suspended licence.

The appellant's daughter, who primarily drove the vehicle, argued the vehicle was stolen, she exercised due diligence, and the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding implicit consent for the friend to use the vehicle, a failure to take reasonable steps to verify the driver's licence, and sufficient alternative transportation options to negate exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a long-standing, unresolved alcohol problem and has not demonstrated a significant period of sobriety or attended recent treatment.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a concussion, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal denied the proposed chiropractic treatment plans for lack of evidence showing progress toward stated goals.

However, the Tribunal approved the psychological assessment and partially approved the psychological treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder and moderate depressive disorder, while reducing the payable amounts to the unregulated provider rate.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payments.

The applicant, an Ontario resident, was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Quebec and elected to receive statutory accident benefits under the Quebec legislative framework.

A dispute arose regarding his entitlement to a lump sum payment, and he applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The respondent insurer brought a preliminary issue motion arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the applicant elected Quebec benefits.

The Tribunal held that it has jurisdiction under section 280 of the Insurance Act to resolve disputes regarding entitlement to benefits, and section 59 of the Schedule does not require an insured to pursue dispute resolution in the jurisdiction where the accident occurred.

The respondent's motion was dismissed.