OLAT 2024

The appellant sought reconsideration of a decision that awarded her $11,499.07 in damages for breach of warranty, arguing she was entitled to $67,969.50.

She alleged the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by disregarding her evidence and erred in law by failing to apply the Consumer Protection Act and Sale of Goods Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness and noting that the other statutes were outside its jurisdiction under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision ordering him to repay an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $10,847.17 to the applicant insurer.

The respondent argued the Tribunal erred by failing to distinguish between gross and net income from his delivery activities and by not considering his impecuniosity.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decision properly considered net earnings calculations and correctly rejected the impecuniosity argument.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent was attempting to re-litigate his case without identifying any error of law or fact.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice while attempting to open the passenger door of his parked vehicle.

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

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that opening the vehicle door was an ordinary use of an automobile and the dominant feature of the incident.

The Tribunal concluded that the icy ground was not an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, and therefore the incident qualified as an accident.

The applicant was assaulted and carjacked while sitting in his parked vehicle.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, which the respondent denied on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the two-part purpose and causation test and found that while the applicant was using the vehicle for an ordinary purpose, the assault was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The use or operation of the vehicle was not the direct cause of the applicant's injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the claim because the applicant failed to submit an application for benefits (OCF-1) within the prescribed time limits under section 32 of the Schedule.

The applicant argued he had a reasonable explanation for the delay, claiming he notified the respondent shortly after the accident and was confused by an email regarding a tort claim and WSIB election.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not provide a credible explanation for the 14-month delay, noting the respondent's multiple unanswered attempts to communicate.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought $39,377.30 in statutory accident benefits for fertility treatments, arguing that adhesions from surgeries following a 2002 motor vehicle accident caused her difficulty conceiving.

The respondent denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the need for fertility treatments was causally related to the accident.

The Tribunal declined to qualify the applicant's family physician as an expert and noted the absence of expert medical evidence linking the adhesions to the fertility issues.

The claims for the medical expenses, an award under Regulation 664, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including occupational therapy, home maintenance expenses, and equipment for a web design course.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the occupational therapy plan, including a treadmill and exercise app, as reasonable and necessary for her mental health recovery.

The Tribunal also approved the computer, printer, and textbook required to complete a previously approved web design course.

However, the Tribunal denied the claim for home maintenance and renovation expenses, finding they were regular property maintenance and not incurred as a result of the accident.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motorcycle, which was impounded after he was found operating it without a valid driver's licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because he could not afford the impoundment fees on his social assistance income.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as walking, obtaining rides from family, and using public transportation or taxis.

As the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the vehicle, the Tribunal confirmed the impoundment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to psychological issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the respondent's expert evidence more reliable than the applicant's expert, concluding the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal also denied the disputed treatment plans for occupational therapy and a driving rehabilitation assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, rejecting claims of chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also excluded late-produced medical records due to the applicant's failure to comply with a Case Conference Report and Order.

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and funding for physiotherapy and assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden.

Specifically, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of his pre- and post-accident activities to satisfy the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed treatment and assessment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought a determination that his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claimed entitlement to a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to determine the MIG issue on a stand-alone basis without an underlying dispute over a specific medical benefit.

On the substantive claim, the Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he continued to work as an independent contractor and maintained most of his pre-accident daily activities.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial letters were compliant with the Schedule and dismissed the claims for an award and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued his injuries were severe and that a pre-existing back condition precluded his recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, which included sporadic visits to his general practitioner and a failure to act on referrals, insufficient to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the reports of the respondent's independent medical assessors, who concluded the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were treatable within the MIG.

The application for treatment plans beyond the $3,500 limit and for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 8, demonstrating marked impairments in activities of daily living, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychological assessor over the insurer's assessor.

The applicant was also awarded entitlement to six disputed treatment plans for case management services, along with interest on overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger on a commercial bus.

He failed to notify the respondent insurer of his intention to apply for accident benefits within the seven-day time limit prescribed by section 32(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, waiting 19 months to do so.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not have a reasonable explanation for the initial 216-day delay, as ignorance of the law is not a reasonable explanation.

Consequently, the applicant was barred from proceeding with his application under section 55(1) of the Schedule, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological injuries sustained after his wife and children were killed in a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied his entitlement to apply for a catastrophic impairment designation because he was not physically involved in the accident.

The Tribunal held that, reading the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule in its entire context, an insured person who suffers psychological impairments as a result of an accident involving family members is entitled to apply for a catastrophic impairment designation under section 45(1), despite not being directly involved in the collision.

The preliminary issue was resolved in favour of the applicant.

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

The respondent denied benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit and terminated income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries fell within the definition of a minor injury and that she failed to establish a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, or psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's expert evidence, which raised significant validity concerns regarding the applicant's presentation, over the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for ongoing income replacement benefits, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of treatment plans for a neurological assessment, psychotherapy services, transportation costs for an orthopaedic assessment, and physiotherapy services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the neurological assessment and physiotherapy services were not reasonable and necessary, relying on insurer examination reports and the lack of objective improvement from past treatments.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant failed to justify a higher hourly rate for a psychotherapist and did not provide evidence of incurred transportation expenses.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and failed to establish that her pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, though the applicant remained entitled to benefits already incurred up to the $3,500 MIG limit.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's friend was caught driving it without an ignition interlock device, contrary to a mandatory condition.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen because the friend took it without permission after borrowing it with another person.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to establish the vehicle was stolen, as he had lent it to the friend and another person, failed to secure the keys, and did not report it stolen.

The impoundment was confirmed.