OLAT 2023

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found she was not catastrophically impaired and denied certain benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact regarding the interpretation of marked versus moderate impairment, concentration, persistence and pace, social functioning, attendant care, and occupational therapy.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact and noting that the reconsideration process is not an opportunity to re-weigh evidence or re-litigate the case.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appeal was filed 18 days past the deadline.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit only because she was not provided with the necessary information on how to do so.

Finding the delay was not significant and the appeal had a reasonable chance of success on the grounds of theft or exceptional hardship, the Tribunal granted the extension of time.

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

The respondent denied the benefits and requested several in-person insurer's examinations under section 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled and re-scheduled examinations, arguing that the assessments should be conducted via paper review or by previously seen assessors to protect her privacy.

The Tribunal found that the respondent provided proper notice and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her non-attendance.

Consequently, the applicant is barred from proceeding with her application before the Tribunal pursuant to section 55(1)2 of the Schedule.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic lower back pain resulting from accident-related weight gain.

The applicant also sought non-earner benefits, arguing she was unable to return to her pre-accident work as a Personal Support Worker.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG, noting her weight gain was not demonstrably caused by functional limitations from the accident.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant's current duties as a foster parent were inconsistent with a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which were denied by the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal excluded the applicant's late-filed written submissions due to non-compliance with the case conference report and order, finding that admitting them would breach procedural fairness and prejudice the respondent.

Relying on the respondent's insurer examination reports, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden to establish that the proposed treatment plans for visual therapy, occupational therapy, psychological services, and chiropractic/massage treatment were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, with no entitlement to an award or interest.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision confirming the Registrar's suspension of their driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The appellant argued the Tribunal failed to consider new evidence regarding their completion of a treatment program, their proposed use of an Interlock device, the lack of specific remission periods in the CCMTA Standards, and the impact of the suspension on their career.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the new evidence would not have changed the outcome, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order an Interlock device, and the other issues did not constitute errors of law or fact.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to refuse to issue a Tow Driver Certificate due to a disqualifying criminal record.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that under section 16(9) of O. Reg. 167/23, there is no right to appeal the Director's refusal in these circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The Registrar suspended the licence after receiving reports that the appellant suffered from alcohol use disorder and seizures due to alcohol withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence supported the diagnoses and that the appellant lacked sufficient insight into their conditions.

The Tribunal concluded that the conditions were likely to significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits and treatment plans for psychological and occupational assessments.

The respondent denied the claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits because he failed to submit evidence that the expenses were incurred.

The Tribunal also denied the psychological treatment plan because the applicant failed to address the specific portions of the plan that were denied, and denied the occupational assessment plan because it was not proven reasonable and necessary and was incurred before the treatment plan was submitted.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision that found the applicant was entitled to an income replacement benefit (IRB) and that CERB payments should be included as 'gross employment income' in calculating the IRB quantum.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration, finding it made an error of law in the original decision.

The Tribunal concluded that CERB payments are a separate form of income that is repayable to the government and not remuneration for employment, and therefore cannot be added to the calculation of IRB quantum.

The decision was varied to reflect an IRB quantum of $195.00 per week.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while cycling and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant failed to notify them of his intention to apply within the prescribed timelines under section 32(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay, as he suffered a traumatic brain injury with memory loss and likely did not remember receiving information about accident benefits.

The Tribunal concluded that the hardship to the applicant outweighed any prejudice to the respondent, allowing the application to proceed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, which proposed to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealer and a salesperson, and refuse the registration of another salesperson.

The parties resolved the issues in dispute and consented to an order continuing the registrations subject to extensive terms and conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, incorporating the agreed-upon terms and conditions into the consent order.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits and several treatment plans for psychological, chiropractic, and occupational therapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the benefits were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer's examination reports over the applicant's medical evidence, noting significant contradictions between the applicant's own examination under oath testimony—where she reported being largely independent and emotionally well—and the severe impairments documented by her assessors.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and occupational therapy services.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's soft tissue injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit, which had been exhausted.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a general labourer.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding that her physical injuries, sustained while caring for her husband who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, did not occur as a result of an accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by misapplying the purpose and causation tests and failing to find her an 'insured person' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that s. 3(1) only extends coverage to a spouse not directly involved in an accident if they suffer psychological or mental injury.

Because the applicant claimed benefits for physical injuries resulting from caregiving, she did not meet the definition of an 'insured person' under the Schedule.

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

The insurer partially approved treatment plans for psychological services but reduced the hourly rate for a psychotherapist from the psychologist rate to a lower rate.

The applicant also sought approval for a naturopath examination.

The Tribunal found that the insurer correctly applied the Professional Services Guideline in determining the hourly rate for the psychotherapist, as psychotherapists are not listed in the Guideline and the insurer's approved rate was reasonable.

The Tribunal also found the naturopath examination was not reasonable and necessary, preferring the insurer's examination report.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $4,400 for a neuropsychological assessment and psychometric testing under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the assessment was reasonable and necessary, noting a pre-existing history of depression and headaches, and a lack of evidence that the proposed assessment was required as a result of the accident.

The application was dismissed and no interest was awarded.

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

The insurer denied two treatment plans and the applicant applied to the Tribunal after the standard two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal held a preliminary issue hearing to determine if the claims were statute-barred.

Applying the Smith test, the Tribunal found the denial for the physiotherapy plan was clear and unequivocal, triggering the limitation period, and declined to extend it under section 7 of the LAT Act.

However, the denial for the chiropractic plan was found deficient and boilerplate, failing to trigger the limitation period.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with the chiropractic claim but barred from the physiotherapy claim.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and the cost of an OCF-19 following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the IRB claim was statute-barred.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's termination letter was a clear and unequivocal denial, triggering the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, noting the lack of explanation for the delay and prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to repay $5,653.93 in overpaid IRBs due to his receipt of CPP Disability benefits, and denied the $2,200.00 claim for the OCF-19 as excessive and not reasonable and necessary.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to determine whether the applicant's slip and fall incident constituted an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant had loaded a clothes dryer onto a pickup truck and subsequently slipped on an icy road, causing the dryer to allegedly fall on him.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The Tribunal concluded that the icy road was an intervening cause and the vehicle was not the dominant feature of the injuries.

The application for benefits was dismissed.