OLAT 2022

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that partially denied her claims for treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by refusing to consider her late reply submissions and by asking factual questions after the hearing.

She also alleged errors of law regarding the application of the Minor Injury Guideline and claimed there was new evidence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no procedural unfairness as the applicant missed the mandated deadline for reply submissions.

The Vice-Chair also found no error of law, noting the applicant was attempting to reargue her case, and concluded that the applicant failed to identify any new evidence that met the test for reconsideration.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle after his friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant took no steps to verify the driver's licence status and had access to alternative vehicles, including a work van and vehicles belonging to his father and girlfriend.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of their motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the appeal and ordered the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to release the vehicle, with written reasons to follow.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar to suspend his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the Notice of Proposal, suspending the appellant's registration for three months starting December 14, 2022.

An added party brought a motion requesting the adjudicator recuse himself from hearing an appeal regarding a liquor licence application.

The motion was based on the adjudicator's membership on the Board of Governors of a university that opposed the application.

The adjudicator granted the motion, finding that an informed person would conclude his concurrent roles created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he was not catastrophically impaired and not entitled to an attendant care benefit.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in fact and law by not finding he had mental and behavioural impairments of at least 19%.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no significant error of law or fact.

The adjudicator reiterated that the respondent's psychiatric expert was preferred over the applicant's expert, and that the applicant's own initial psychological assessor found no diagnosable psychological impairment.

The claim for attendant care benefits was also dismissed as moot and unsupported by evidence.

The applicant sought a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to an income replacement benefit and found her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant alleged multiple errors of law and fact, including the misapplication of the standard for causation, omission of relevant evidence, and misinterpretation of section 11 of the Schedule, as well as breaches of procedural fairness.

The adjudicator dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was primarily attempting to relitigate factual findings and the weighing of evidence from the original hearing.

The adjudicator concluded that no legal or factual errors were established that would have likely changed the outcome, and no procedural fairness violations occurred.

The applicant's request for costs was also denied.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority to revoke and impose conditions on their home construction licences.

The parties reached a settlement and applied to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order revoking certain licences, imposing conditions on others, and requiring the payment of a $60,000 administrative monetary penalty along with the return of over $2.5 million in monetary benefits to affected purchasers.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two separate motor vehicle accidents in 2017 and 2018.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applications were statute-barred for missing the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the application for the 2017 accident was filed out of time and dismissed it, as the applicant did not request an extension under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

However, the Tribunal found that the application for the 2018 accident was filed within the limitation period, as the period was extended by 183 days due to the pandemic under O. Reg. 73/20.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with the 2018 accident claim.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing psychological condition and accident-related driving anxiety.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that a pre-existing condition prevented her from achieving maximal medical recovery within the MIG limit.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which concluded the applicant's injuries were minor and not a barrier to recovery.

The application for additional medical benefits and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing back condition and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's soft tissue injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to demonstrate a functional impairment or that his pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were not payable as the MIG limits were exhausted.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant was entitled to an income replacement benefit for a 12-week period, conditional on providing required financial documentation, but barred his ongoing claim due to his failure to submit an updated disability certificate as requested by the respondent.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, specifically four treatment plans for physiotherapy, following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent argued the claim was res judicata because a prior Tribunal application for the same relief was dismissed in 2019.

The applicant contended that new medical evidence demonstrated a material change in her condition.

The Tribunal found that the four preconditions for res judicata were met and that the fresh evidence did not show a material change or impeach the original results.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit.

A videoconference hearing was scheduled to determine the income replacement benefit issue, with remaining issues to be heard in writing.

The applicant, who was self-represented after his counsel withdrew, failed to attend the hearing despite being properly served with the notice of hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant provided no submissions or evidence, he failed to meet his burden of proof.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for an income replacement benefit and set a schedule for written submissions on the remaining issues, including the respondent's request for costs.

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

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the requested treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting her active lifestyle including weightlifting and combat sports contradicted claims of chronic pain and functional impairment.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial notices complied with section 38(8) of the Schedule, and the applicant failed to prove the disputed assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

Both parties requested reconsideration of a decision regarding entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by admitting college records and failing to address a costs request, and made errors of fact and law in weighing medical evidence.

The Respondent argued the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Schedule regarding assessment fee limits.

The Tribunal granted the Applicant's request in part to address the omitted costs request, which was ultimately denied, and dismissed all other grounds for reconsideration, finding no significant errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The applicant sought a determination from the Licence Appeal Tribunal on whether her injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) as a standalone preliminary issue.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the applicability of the MIG in the absence of a specific disputed medical or rehabilitation benefit tied to it.

The Tribunal noted that the MIG is a treatment framework, not a statutory accident benefit itself, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her Class DZ commercial driver's licence due to a seizure disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant had experienced seizures, the medical evidence demonstrated they were provoked by controllable lifestyle triggers (alcohol and sleep deprivation).

Given the appellant's compliance with medication, avoidance of triggers, and support from her treating neurologist, the Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove the condition was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

The suspension was set aside.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after a co-worker drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as he had left the keys in an office drawer at work and explicitly told co-workers not to drive it.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible and concluded that the co-worker took the vehicle without consent with the intent to deprive the owner of it.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle, finding it was stolen at the time of impoundment.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his application for a cannabis retail manager licence.

The refusal was based on the appellant's prior criminal convictions and his failure to disclose numerous driving charges, convictions, and suspensions on his application.

The Tribunal found that the appellant provided false information by failing to disclose his driving record and licence suspensions.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act with integrity or in accordance with the law, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for a Liquor Licence after residents objected to the application.

The objectors raised concerns about noise, violence, and intoxication based on the previous operation of a nightclub at the same premises by a different individual.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not responsible for the previous operation, that the former operator would not be involved, and that the applicant intended to operate responsibly.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence, subject to conditions prohibiting the former operator from having any involvement in the business.