OLAT 2023

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found she was not involved in an accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness, made errors of law, and failed to properly apply the legal test for an accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-litigate her case and that no errors of law or procedural fairness violations occurred.

The Tribunal confirmed its previous finding that the applicant's impairments arose from the aftermath of the accident, not the use or operation of an automobile.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of treatment plans for assistive devices, a neuropsychological assessment, and physiotherapy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a robot vacuum, miscellaneous assistive devices, and occupational therapy, but denied the costs associated with a hot tub.

The Tribunal also approved a psychological assessment and physiotherapy, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a special award of $440 under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 for unreasonably denying the psychological assessment, along with interest on overdue benefits.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental or behavioural disorder) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment evaluation was not conducted by a physician as required by the Schedule, as the physicians merely rubber-stamped the findings of a neuropsychologist and an occupational therapist.

Because a neuropsychologist is precluded from determining catastrophic impairment outside of Criterion 7, the Tribunal gave no weight to the medical evidence and dismissed the catastrophic impairment claim.

However, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay up to $2,000 each for the neuropsychological and occupational therapy assessments, as they were reasonable and necessary to explore the applicant's impairments.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to establish a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, or psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

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

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay income replacement benefits received between October 2018 and January 2019, finding she wilfully misrepresented her work status by failing to report her return to work.

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

The suspension was based on reports indicating the appellant suffered from a severe alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from an alcohol use disorder that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not completed a supervised rehabilitation program and was not attending ongoing treatment, falling short of the criteria for re-licensing under the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a broker under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, directing the Registrar not to revoke the registration but to apply specific conditions, including mandatory education, reporting of outstanding criminal charges, and restrictions on acting as a broker of record.

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

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries were minor, she suffered from a psychological impairment (anxiety related to driving) that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved a $2,460.00 psychological assessment but denied an attendant care assessment, finding the applicant was independent in her daily activities.

A claim for an award under O. Reg. 664 for unreasonable delay was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed an Order to Pay an Administrative Penalty of $1,500 issued by the Registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a Consent Order to dispose of the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request and disposed of the proceeding on the terms agreed to by the parties.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove she suffered from chronic pain syndrome or a pre-existing condition that would remove her from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal held that the respondent's denial letter failed to provide adequate medical and other reasons as required by s. 38(8) of the Schedule, as it merely referred to an unspecified 'list of injuries'.

Consequently, under s. 38(11)2, the treatment plan was payable regardless of the MIG limits.

The applicant was awarded $2,460.00 for the assessment plus interest.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The applicant argued that the adjudicator erred in law by finding that her on-call work arrangement at a pasta factory did not constitute employment at the time of the accident under s. 5(1)(1)(i) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, affirming the application of the Divisional Court's test in Arab, which requires an exchange of remuneration for services over a defined period.

The adjudicator found no error in concluding that being on call, without performing services or receiving remuneration at the time of the accident, did not meet the statutory definition of employment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred when another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she relied on the vehicle for her self-employed cleaning business.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative to the vehicle for her business and that the resulting financial loss would be immediate, significant, and long-lasting.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant failed to provide requested employment and medical documents.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not comply with section 33 requests for information without a reasonable explanation, disentitling him to IRBs.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The claim for physiotherapy was dismissed as statute-barred under the two-year limitation period.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's roommate was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that she had no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had made arrangements with a friend for transportation and had not inquired into other reasonable options.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a motion order which found he did not provide a reasonable explanation for filing his application for statutory accident benefits outside the prescribed time limits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact regarding his knowledge of the SABS, his belief that his injuries would resolve, and the adequacy of the insurer's notice of consequences for late filing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no significant legal or evidentiary mistakes that would warrant reconsideration.

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

The suspension was triggered by a Medical Condition Report submitted by the appellant's family physician following the appellant's grief reaction to his wife's death.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder, he does not suffer from an ongoing mental health condition.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's alcohol dependence is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, noting his 38-year driving record without an impaired driving offence and his responsible habits.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found his injuries were predominantly minor, denied his claim for non-earner benefits (NEBs) and treatment plans, and ordered him to repay $6,105.00 in NEBs.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in weighing the medical evidence regarding his pre-existing conditions and relied on an incomplete OCF-3 form.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate his case and re-weigh the evidence, which are not valid grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The Tribunal confirmed that the original decision properly considered the totality of the evidence.

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

At the hearing, the applicant requested to convert the proceeding to a written hearing, which was denied.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal as abandoned, which was also denied.

Because the applicant failed to submit a hearing brief or provide any documentary evidence or witness testimony, the adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her onus to prove entitlement to the disputed benefits.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons following a motor vehicle collision caused by a severe hypoglycemic episode.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant suffers from severe hypoglycemia, he had taken decisive steps to monitor and control his blood sugar levels, including using a continuous glucose monitor and working with a medical team.

The Tribunal concluded that the condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRB) and the cost of a forensic accounting report.

The applicant also sought a determination that his injuries warranted treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to make a standalone MIG determination without a connected claim for medical benefits.

The Tribunal also dismissed the IRB claim because the applicant submitted his disability certificate after the period claimed.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the cost of the forensic accounting report, finding it was not reasonable and necessary given its high cost relative to the small IRB claim.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied funding for psychological and chiropractic treatment, arguing the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found the applicant sustained a psychological impairment, removing him from the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal awarded the cost of a psychological assessment and partially awarded the costs for psychological and chiropractic treatment, finding that the applicant had recovered substantially over time.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed, as the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable.