OLAT 2022

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was impounded after being driven by a friend with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for her employment and an unpaid student placement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as public transportation and rides from peers and family.

As alternatives were available, the test for exceptional hardship was not met.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was filed outside the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denials were clear and unequivocal, and the application was filed more than two years after the denials.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision barring him from proceeding with his application for accident benefits due to his failure to attend an insurer's examination (IE).

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law by failing to properly consider whether the insurer made reasonable efforts to schedule the IE at a convenient time, and violated natural justice by attributing delay to him rather than the Tribunal.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact, as the insurer had rescheduled the IEs and the applicant never communicated any scheduling conflicts.

The adjudicator also found no violation of natural justice, noting the delay caused incurable prejudice to the insurer.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a physiotherapy treatment plan outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and did not warrant removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The application for IRBs, the treatment plan, an award, and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant applied to the Tribunal, claiming chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence supporting removal from the MIG, noting his physical injuries were soft-tissue in nature and his psychological issues were related to work rather than the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Travel Industry Council of Ontario denying her claim for compensation from the Travel Industry Compensation Fund.

The claim was initially denied because the funds were paid to an unregistered company.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing and did not request an adjournment.

As the appellant bore the onus of proving eligibility for reimbursement and presented no evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and refused the claim.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision finding that the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing condition that prevented maximum medical recovery.

The insurer argued there was insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition and that the adjudicator misapplied the MIG test.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the original decision relied on sufficient medical evidence of pre-accident back and shoulder pain, and correctly applied the test for exemption from the MIG treatment limits.

The insurer failed to prove a significant error of law or fact.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and medical benefits for physiotherapy.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical impairments were sprain and strain-type injuries falling within the MIG, and she failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to warrant removal.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and an in-home occupational therapy assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary, relying on insurer examinations which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery from soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal agreed with the insurer, finding that the applicant had received adequate treatment and failed to provide compelling medical evidence to support the need for further therapy or an in-home assessment.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was payable.

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

The respondent denied certain psychological and chiropractic treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, as there was insufficient evidence of pre-existing conditions, psychological impairment, post-concussive syndrome, or chronic pain.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert reports, which concluded the applicant suffered only uncomplicated soft tissue injuries.

The application for medical benefits, interest, and an award was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant appealed the downgrade of her commercial Class F driver's licence by the Minister of Transportation due to a reported medical condition of seizures.

The appellant, a paramedic, had a history of childhood epilepsy but had been seizure-free off medication for over 12 years before experiencing a single seizure in August 2020 under extreme stress and sleep deprivation.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant suffers from seizures, the Minister failed to establish that the condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely, given her lifestyle changes, compliance with medication, and the presence of a lengthy prodrome before seizures.

The Minister's decision to downgrade the licence was set aside.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle collision.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the accident was staged and did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Relying on expert accident reconstruction evidence which concluded the vehicles' damage and resting positions defied the laws of physics for the reported collision, the adjudicator found the applicant failed to prove the accident occurred as claimed.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming costs for physiotherapy, a physiatry assessment, and a psychological assessment.

The adjudicator found the physiotherapy treatment plan reasonable and necessary as the applicant reported gradual improvement and pain relief.

The physiatry assessment was also approved, supported by medical opinions indicating the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome extending beyond the expected recovery period.

However, the claim for a psychological assessment was dismissed because there was insufficient documented evidence of psychological impairments in the family physician's records, and the respondent's psychological assessment finding no impairment was preferred.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payments for the approved benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $1,230.92 for an attendant care assessment, along with interest and a special award.

The insurer denied the benefit on the basis that it was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the assessment was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous objective evidence and preferring the insurer's section 44 multidisciplinary reports.

As no benefits were overdue, the claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

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

The respondent denied certain medical and assessment benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a pre-existing knee condition, a concussion, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition precluding recovery, no medical diagnosis of a concussion, and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment which found no DSM-5 diagnosis.

The application was dismissed as the MIG limits were exhausted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice in a parking lot after exiting his commercial truck.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the two-part purpose and causation test.

While the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The Tribunal found that the dominant factor causing the injuries was the slip and fall on the icy parking lot, which constituted an independent intervening event breaking the chain of causation from the use or operation of the automobile.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to engage in any employment due to physical, psychological, and cognitive injuries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.

The adjudicator preferred the evidence of the respondent's medical assessors, noting that the applicant had engaged in undisclosed post-accident employment, including selling insurance and acting as a director for several corporations.

The applicant's failure to disclose these activities to his own treatment providers undermined their opinions.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

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 roommate was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that she had no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle for her self-employment as a roofer or for her personal errands.

The Applicant was struck by a vehicle in a parking lot, sustaining a right knee sprain and psychological injuries.

She also had a pre-existing hip condition that required surgery.

The Tribunal found that the accident did not cause or accelerate the need for hip surgery, but did cause chronic knee pain that prevented her from working.

The Applicant was awarded income replacement benefits, physiotherapy, and psychological treatment.

Claims for attendant care benefits and occupational therapy related to her hip surgery were dismissed, as was her claim for a special award.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying a chiropractic treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness, made errors of law and fact by preferring the insurer's examination over the treating doctor's reports, and sought to introduce new medical evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no error of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, and that the new evidence was obtained after the decision and would not have altered the result.