OLAT 2023

The insurer brought a preliminary issue motion to bar the insured from proceeding with a claim for income replacement benefits (IRB) because he failed to submit a Disability Certificate (OCF-3) within 104 weeks of the accident.

The insured argued that O. Reg. 73/20, enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, extended the deadline by 183 days.

The Tribunal held that O. Reg. 73/20 applies to legal proceedings and limitation periods, not to the specific document submission deadlines within the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Finding that the OCF-3 was never properly submitted to the insurer within the prescribed timeline, the Tribunal barred the insured from proceeding and dismissed the IRB claim.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries, including chronic pain, warranted treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the injuries were minor.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove he suffered from non-minor injuries or chronic pain with functional impairment.

The Tribunal preferred the comprehensive insurer's examination report over the applicant's medical evidence.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and its $3,500 limit was exhausted, the claims for treatment plans, an award, and interest were dismissed.

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

After a case conference, a written hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to provide any submissions or evidence by the deadlines.

The applicant's representative indicated the matter was resolved and a Notice of Withdrawal would be filed, but none was received despite multiple reminders.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden to establish that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and several physiotherapy treatment plans.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence by the deadlines set in a case conference report and a subsequent motion order.

Due to the applicant's failure to meet her evidentiary burden, the Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

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 any submissions or evidence by the deadlines.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed, as the Tribunal found that merely failing to file submissions did not constitute unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct.

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

The vehicle was impounded after an unauthorized driver, who had borrowed it from a renter on the Turo app, was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed the appeal 20 days after the impoundment, missing the 15-day deadline.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that the justice of the case required an extension, noting the lack of prejudice to the respondent, the merit of the appeal based on due diligence, the appellant's genuine intention to appeal, and the reasonable length of the delay.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his Class A commercial driver's licence due to a reported syncopal episode.

The Minister argued the appellant did not meet the medical standards for commercial drivers and required a one-year episode-free period.

The Tribunal found that the syncopal episode was an isolated event caused by exceptional circumstances, including extended driving time, limited oral intake, and lack of sleep.

Relying on supportive medical opinions from the appellant's treating neurologist and cardiologist, the Tribunal concluded the Minister failed to establish that the appellant's condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

The Minister's decision was set aside.

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

The 84-year-old appellant appealed the impoundment on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no viable alternative transportation due to her age, mobility issues, and limited income, and that the impoundment threatened her health and safety as she had already missed two medical appointments.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after it was stopped by police while being driven by her brother-in-law, who was in breach of a condition requiring an ignition interlock device.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the driver was in breach of his licence conditions, the appellant failed to exercise due diligence in verifying his licence status, and the impoundment would not result in exceptional hardship as alternative transportation options were available.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits for chiropractic treatment.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered predominantly minor injuries and failed to provide compelling medical evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for IRBs, finding no evidence of a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of employment, and concluded the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for six physiotherapy treatment plans following a December 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to produce key medical records, including those related to a subsequent October 2019 accident, leading to an adverse inference.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of objective medical evidence and inconsistencies in the applicant's claims.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to psychological disorders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant suffered from accident-related post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, these resulted in only moderate impairments in the activities of daily living and social functioning.

Consequently, the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims for attendant care benefits, finding them not reasonable and necessary based on orthopedic evidence of normal range of motion.

Claims for an attendant care assessment and various treatment plans were dismissed because the applicant had exhausted the $65,000 non-catastrophic funding limit.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, occupational therapy, assistive devices, and assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's ongoing impairments were caused by pre-existing degenerative conditions rather than the accident, relying on the respondent's orthopaedic assessment.

The Tribunal denied further attendant care benefits and most treatment plans, but approved a psychological assessment, an attendant care assessment, and an inner bathmat.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the respondent did not act unreasonably or in bad faith.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after police discovered it being driven by an individual whose driver's licence required an ignition interlock device, which the vehicle lacked.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship to his snow removal business.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as required by section 10(4) of O. Reg. 631/98, noting he had access to other vehicles in his fleet and could borrow a family member's vehicle.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to cognitive impairment resulting from a stroke and a visual condition.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal regarding the visual condition suspension.

On the cognitive impairment issue, the Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a cognitive impairment that significantly interferes with his ability to drive safely, relying on medical reports and two failed functional driving assessments.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

The applicant sought medical benefits and Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he did not meet the test for IRBs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered predominantly minor physical injuries and failed to prove a chronic pain condition or psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plans were not payable.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding insufficient objective evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

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

The applicant argued the Tribunal made an error of law or fact by failing to properly apply the causation test and the dominant feature test.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and introduce new arguments not raised at the initial hearing.

The Tribunal concluded no error of law or fact was made.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision finding the insured entitled to an attendant care assessment after being removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing condition.

The insurer argued that removal from the MIG did not equate to removal from the definition of a 'minor injury', and thus the insured was still barred from receiving an in-home assessment.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, holding that removal from the MIG removes all its constraints, including limits on goods and services, and that no error of law was made in the original decision.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found him statute-barred from pursuing a claim for occupational and physical therapy treatment plans and denied 10 other treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator made several errors of fact and law, including misinterpreting section 44 of the Schedule and failing to consider the severity of his concussion.

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration in part, correcting a factual error regarding the applicant's attendance at an insurer's examination and awarding a $200 form completion fee.

However, the adjudicator found no errors of law or fact that would change the outcome of the remaining dismissed claims.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing physical and psychological conditions.

She also sought a non-earner benefit and funding for various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions were exacerbated by the accident or prevented her from achieving maximum medical recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, finding the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life compared to her pre-accident activities.

Consequently, the proposed treatment plans outside the MIG were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.