OLAT 2023

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a prescribed Criminal Code offence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen by his son in the middle of the night without permission.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible, concluding that the vehicle was taken without consent with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner of it, meeting the legal definition of 'stolen'.

The appeal was granted and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as motor vehicle salespersons and disentitle the corporate appellant to registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The parties resolved the issues and consented to an order continuing the registrations subject to strict terms and conditions, including periodic inspections, completion of certification courses, and restrictions on involvement in certain dealerships.

The Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant was receiving an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant subsequently withdrew his application for dispute resolution, but the respondent insurer proceeded with the hearing to seek repayment of the IRB due to wilful misrepresentation.

Relying on video surveillance showing the applicant performing physical chores, running errands, and attending a job site, the Tribunal found the applicant had misrepresented his functional limitations to medical assessors.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $10,988.42 for the period following the misrepresentation, but denied the respondent's claim for interest as it had not been claimed in the repayment notice.

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

The parties entered into a full and final settlement for $13,000.

The applicant subsequently applied to the Tribunal to dispute the settlement, arguing that rehabilitation benefits were not included.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not returned the settlement funds.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that under section 9.1(8) of Regulation 664, an applicant must return the money received as consideration for a settlement before applying to the Tribunal.

As the applicant failed to do so, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing back issues and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that a pre-existing condition prevented her maximal recovery within the MIG, nor did she establish a diagnosis of chronic pain with functional impairment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant did not prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment as a production packer.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed minor, the disputed treatment plans were denied for exceeding the $3,500 MIG limit.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its registration as a travel retailer under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The parties resolved the issues in dispute and consented to the continued registration of the appellant subject to specific conditions, including the timely filing of financial statements.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing and issued a consent order incorporating the agreed-upon terms.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that removed the applicant from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) on psychological grounds.

The respondent argued the Tribunal made errors of fact regarding the applicant's return to driving and the characterization of medical reports, and errors of law by failing to properly assess functional limitations and the threshold of impairment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no significant errors of fact or law, and noted that the respondent was improperly attempting to re-litigate its position and raise new arguments not presented at the original hearing.

The applicant was involved in a single-vehicle collision with a guardrail.

His vehicle was towed to a Collision Reporting Centre, where he slipped and fell on a snow-covered hill, fracturing his ankle.

He sought statutory accident benefits, claiming his injuries were caused by the collision.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' as defined by s. 3(1) of the Schedule, as the slip and fall was an intervening act that directly caused his injuries, breaking the causal link to the use or operation of the automobile.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to his medical issues and rural location.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including family assistance, ride-sharing, taxis, and rental vehicles.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The matter was scheduled for a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file submissions and filed his evidence brief late without explanation or consent.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to establish entitlement to the benefits claimed and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend their driver's licence due to a reported mental health condition.

The Registrar argued the appellant's recent hospitalizations demonstrated a lack of stability requiring a six-month suspension under the CCMTA Standards.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's condition was stable, they had good insight into their mental health, and no treating physician had recommended a driving suspension.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove the condition significantly interfered with the appellant's ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.

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

The insurer denied the benefits because the applicant failed to notify them of his intention to apply within seven days, as required by section 32(1) of the Schedule.

The applicant submitted his application over five months later.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide a credible or reasonable explanation for the delay, noting he had been involved in another accident two weeks prior and was familiar with the process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory 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 Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were minor soft-tissue strains and that he failed to establish any accident-related psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

Because the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and denied the request for a special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a chronic pain treatment program, a neurological examination, and a psychological examination.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and had no ongoing impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's functional abilities, normal gait, and lack of reliance on pain medication undermined the need for the chronic pain program.

Furthermore, previous assessments had already concluded the applicant suffered no neurological or psychological impairments.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under the ambulatory mobility criterion following a motor vehicle accident.

While the Tribunal accepted that the accident caused a severe and permanent alteration to the structure and function of her right leg, it rejected the SCIM scoring methodologies presented by both parties' experts.

The applicant's experts improperly scored her using a wheeled walker without a swing gait, and the respondent's expert improperly substituted his hand for a cane.

Without valid SCIM scoring evidence, the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

Claims for a walker and a CAT assessment were also dismissed as the applicant made no submissions to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove chronic pain or psychological impairment caused by the subject accident, noting a subsequent accident that aggravated his symptoms was not disclosed to his assessors.

The application was dismissed as the injuries were predominantly minor and the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted.

The applicant sought entitlement to a $2,200 psychological assessment, a special award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's psychological evidence, noting it relied on self-reporting that was contradicted by surveillance footage showing the applicant driving frequently and engaging in various activities.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's insurer examination, which found no psychological symptoms warranting further investigation.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for statutory accident benefits.

The original decision found that the applicant failed to establish his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and therefore did not consider the reasonableness and necessity of the disputed treatment plans.

On reconsideration, the applicant argued this failure constituted an error of law or fact.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that because the applicant did not meet his initial burden to remove himself from the MIG, there was no available funding and thus no need to assess the treatment plans.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological injuries sustained after her husband suffered a medical incident (stroke and cardiac arrest) while driving, which resulted in a collision.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the applicant was not an 'insured person' under section 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that there was no medical evidence proving the applicant's husband sustained a physical injury as a result of the accident, as opposed to the medical incident itself.

Consequently, the applicant did not meet the definition of an insured person under section 3(1)(a)(ii) and the application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend their driver's licence due to medical conditions.

The Registrar relied on a medical report from a hospital psychiatrist indicating the appellant suffered from alcohol use disorder and cognitive impairment following a hospitalization for a fractured hip.

The appellant denied having these conditions but provided no corroborating medical evidence.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from both conditions and that they are likely to significantly interfere with the ability to drive safely.

The licence suspension was confirmed.