OLAT 2023

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces living on a military base, argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because he had no reasonable alternative transportation to work and was subject to 24/7 recall duty.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative to the vehicle and faced immediate, significant, and long-lasting financial and economic losses, including potential termination of employment.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding the applicant was employed at the time of the accident and entitled to an income replacement benefit.

The respondent argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact by failing to apply the eligibility criteria in s. 5(1) of the Schedule and failing to consider the impact of the applicant's WSIB benefits under s. 47(3)(e) of the Schedule and s. 43(3) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding the original decision lacked the necessary analysis of these provisions.

The request for reconsideration was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and a rehearing by written submissions before a different adjudicator was ordered.

The appellant, a private career college operating a truck driving school, appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse to renew its registration and a Notice of Immediate Suspension issued by the Superintendent of Private Career Colleges.

The Superintendent alleged various safety and administrative contraventions, including improper instructor-to-student ratios, inadequate backing instruction space, and deficient record-keeping.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant had committed several administrative contraventions, the Superintendent failed to prove the more serious safety allegations, such as crediting out-of-ratio instruction hours or intentionally obstructing the investigation.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant demonstrated a willingness to comply and had proposed reasonable solutions in its Action Plan.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to lift the suspension and renew the registration, subject to strict conditions including the appointment of a compliance monitor for six months.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a report indicating he suffers from hypoglycemia.

The appellant failed to attend the continuation of his hearing and provided no medical evidence to contradict the emergency room physician's diagnosis.

The Tribunal applied the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers and found that the appellant's condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 7 of the Schedule.

The central dispute involved competing psychological assessments, with the applicant's expert assigning a 20% whole person impairment rating and the respondent's expert assigning 0%.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert, finding that the assigned scores more accurately reflected the applicant's level of functioning and testimony regarding his return to work and socializing.

As a result, the applicant failed to meet the 55% threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The claims for various assessments, an award, and interest were consequently dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy services and an orthopaedic assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits and argued that the claims for two of the treatment plans were statute-barred under the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial notices contained boilerplate language and failed to provide valid medical reasons, meaning they did not trigger the limitation period.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found that the proposed treatment plans and the orthopaedic assessment were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's ongoing pain and promote a return to normal activities.

The applicant was awarded the claimed benefits and interest on overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $1,866.95 for a psychological treatment plan (OCF-18) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim based on section 44 assessment reports.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating psychologist over the insurer's assessors, whose reports were either outdated or lacked necessary psychological testing.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the treatment plan with interest, but dismissed the applicant's claim for a section 10 award, finding the insurer's reliance on its assessors was not unreasonable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a physiotherapy treatment plan and a driver/passenger assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the physiotherapy treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of clear goals and timelines for recovery, as well as pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal also found the driver/passenger assessment was not reasonable and necessary, as a psychological progress report indicated the applicant felt she could manage on her own.

The claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that denied her payment out of the guarantee fund for a delay in occupancy of her condominium units.

The appellant sought to introduce new evidence and argued the Tribunal made an error of law or fact regarding the interpretation of the Tarion Addendum and the roof assembly date.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the proposed new evidence either was already considered or did not meet the test for admission, and that the appellant failed to establish any error of law or fact that would have changed the result.

The Tribunal noted that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-litigate a case.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans and a non-earner benefit, 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 did not warrant removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

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 failed to prove his injuries, including alleged head and shoulder injuries and chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding insufficient evidence of a substantial inability to perform essential tasks of employment and a failure to produce post-accident income records.

Claims for treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were consequently dismissed.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was driven by an employee with a suspended licence.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the appellant lacked standing because she was not the registered owner at the exact time of impoundment, having acquired ownership from her father shortly after.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's motion, finding the current owner has standing to appeal.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal granted the extension of time, noting the appellant's bona fide intention to appeal, reasonable efforts to obtain information, and the merits of her hardship claim.

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 were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain syndrome, relying on a chiropractor's diagnosis.

The Tribunal found that diagnosing chronic pain is outside a chiropractor's scope of practice and gave it no weight.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, as she had not demonstrated functional impairment and had returned to work and daily activities.

The application for treatment plans, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The appellant sought reimbursement from the Travel Industry Compensation Fund for unredeemed travel vouchers issued by an airline after flights were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the airline subsequently went bankrupt.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that under s. 57(5) of Ontario Regulation 26/05, only unredeemed vouchers issued by a registrant (travel agent or wholesaler) are eligible for reimbursement, not those issued by an end supplier such as an airline.

Furthermore, vouchers issued as a goodwill gesture are excluded under s. 57(3)5.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice while exiting her vehicle at a gas station.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that while the purpose test was met, the causation test failed.

The Tribunal concluded that the ice was an intervening cause and the dominant feature of the injuries, not the use or operation of the automobile.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to $1,130.00 for PRP injections and $2,200 for a psychological assessment, as these were supported by the medical evidence and treating practitioners' recommendations at the time.

However, the Tribunal denied the claims for physical therapy, a chronic pain assessment, and massage therapy, finding that the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary given the lack of objective evidence of efficacy and the duplicative nature of the chronic pain assessment.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services.

The Tribunal found that the chiropractic treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's chronic pain, relying on the clinical notes of the applicant's family physician.

However, the Tribunal denied the psychological treatment plans because the applicant failed to provide evidence justifying the proposed hourly rates and the costs of the psychological materials.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award, finding no evidence that the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed benefits.

The applicant sought medical and non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she did not meet the test for non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, as medical evidence showed only soft tissue injuries and no chronic pain or pre-existing conditions precluding recovery.

Because the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed physiotherapy treatment plan was denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the self-represented applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence despite being granted an extension of time.

The Tribunal found that it had met its reasonable notice obligations under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and proceeded in the applicant's absence.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to prove entitlement to the claimed benefits or removal from the Minor Injury Guideline.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend their driver's licence due to a reported episode of severe hypoglycemia.

During the hearing, the Tribunal ruled it would be procedurally unfair to allow the Registrar to add a new allegation of hypoglycemia unawareness without prior notice.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that while the appellant has type 1 diabetes and experienced a severe hypoglycemic episode, the evidence demonstrated that glycemic control had been re-established and the episode was an isolated incident caused by a forgotten continuous glucose monitor sensor.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant's medical condition was not likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.