OLAT 2024

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the balance of treatment hours for equine-assisted psychotherapy at an hourly rate of $99.75, but denied claims for form completion fees, travel time, and chiropractic services.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay for a catastrophic impairment determination examination because its denial notice failed to provide medical reasons, violating section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The applicant's claim for an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments allegedly resulting from her daughter's motor vehicle accident.

The insurer requested insurer's examinations (IEs) under section 44 of the Schedule to determine entitlement.

The applicant, who had moved to Morocco, failed to attend the scheduled IEs and proposed alternative arrangements not permitted by the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant non-compliant with her obligation to attend the IEs and held that she is barred from proceeding with her application pursuant to section 55 of the Schedule.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer agreed to pay the benefits subject to proof that the expenses were incurred, but the applicant failed to provide any expense claim forms or invoices.

The applicant argued the expenses should be deemed incurred due to the insurer's delayed response to a Form 1.

The Tribunal found that the delayed response did not automatically entitle the applicant to benefits and declined to deem the expenses incurred.

The application for benefits, along with claims for an award and interest, was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice while exiting a pickup truck he had taken for a test drive.

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

The Tribunal applied the two-part purpose and causation test, finding that exiting a vehicle is an ordinary and well-known activity, and that the use or operation of the vehicle was a direct cause of the injuries.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was involved in an accident and ordered the application to proceed to a hearing on the substantive issues.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for psychological services and assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant did not prove an accident-related psychological impairment or chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessors over the applicant's assessors due to inconsistencies with contemporaneous clinical records.

However, pursuant to section 40(8) of the Schedule, the disputed benefits were deemed reasonable and necessary up to the remaining $3,500 MIG limit.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish a psychological condition or chronic pain with functional impairment, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment.

The Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, limiting her entitlement to the remaining $68.00 of the $3,500 MIG limit, and dismissed claims for further medical benefits and a special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied various treatment plans and income replacement benefits (IRBs), arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were minor, rejecting reports of psychological impairment and chronic pain due to inconsistencies and suspected malingering.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's medical examinations, concluding the applicant was subject to the $3,500 MIG limit and not entitled to the disputed medical benefits.

The claim for IRBs was also dismissed as the applicant failed to prove an inability to perform essential tasks and did not disclose post-accident income.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to psychological assessments and treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient, preferring the respondent's psychological assessments which found only subclinical symptoms.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain.

The application was dismissed, with the applicant remaining subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver's licence was not suspended.

The vehicle was driven by a friend whose licence was suspended for Criminal Code convictions, resulting in a second impoundment within two years.

The Tribunal found that the appellant, having experienced a previous impoundment with the same driver, failed to take reasonable steps to confirm his licence was reinstated.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

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

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

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible, noting she had explicitly told her son not to drive the vehicle and had left the keys accessible only due to her own health issues.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of the Act and ordered its release.

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

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

The applicant argued that pre-existing neck and back pain from previous accidents warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish a documented pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

The application for treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized when driven by a suspended driver.

She filed the appeal two days late and sought an extension of time.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal and the delay was minimal and partly due to police failing to provide the required notice.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The appellant, a single mother on social assistance, had no reasonable alternative transportation and needed the vehicle to access medical treatment and prescriptions for her son's severe dermatitis.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

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 applicant claimed a psychological impairment (PTSD) warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence did not support a psychological diagnosis, noting the family physician's records contradicted the PTSD claim.

As the applicant's injuries were minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the claims for physiotherapy, medical services, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after being driven by an unlicenced driver.

The appellant filed an appeal 33 days late and sought an extension of time.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the extension, finding the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal but was not notified of the impoundment in a timely manner.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the appellant exercised due diligence by asking to see the driver's licence, which appeared valid, before loaning the vehicle.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle ordered released.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's friend, whose licence was suspended, was caught driving it.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen because she had expressly prohibited him from driving it and he took the keys without her consent.

Applying the Marshall test, the Tribunal found the vehicle was taken without consent with the intent to deprive the owner of it.

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRB) and medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports which concluded she suffered only soft-tissue injuries.

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

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRB, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment or a complete inability to engage in any employment.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a reported medical condition of obstructive sleep apnea.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence relied upon by the Registrar was ambivalent and based on a self-diagnosis during an urgent care visit for a sinus infection and COVID-19.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence that he did not have the physical characteristics of sleep apnea and set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by her boyfriend, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the vehicle was taken without her consent and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative transportation and that the loss of the vehicle would result in a threat to the health and safety of her clients, as well as immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss.

The appeal was allowed on the ground of exceptional hardship, and the vehicle was ordered released.

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

The Registrar alleged the appellant suffered a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal that significantly interfered with their ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant did suffer a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal, the condition was not likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely, given their abstinence from alcohol, insight into their condition, and supportive medical opinions.

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

The Appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' order cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and vehicle registrations.

The Tribunal found that the safety record and conduct of the Appellant's sole director, which included an alarming increase in his Overall Violation Rate, stunt driving, and operating a tow truck without a certificate due to a weapons prohibition, provided reasonable grounds to believe the Appellant would not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's cancellation order.