OLAT 2025

The appellant appealed a decision by the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claim for compensation for a deposit paid to a home builder.

The appellant argued she had exercised her statutory right to rescind the agreement of purchase and sale (APS) and that the builder committed a fundamental breach by failing to set a delayed closing date and selling the home to another buyer.

The Tribunal found that the builder's unavoidable delay notices were invalid, meaning the original critical dates applied, and the appellant's termination notice was provided after the termination period had expired.

Furthermore, applying the Spirent factors, the Tribunal held that the builder's failure to set a delayed closing date did not constitute a fundamental breach, as it did not deprive the appellant of substantially the whole benefit of the APS.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his Class A(Z) driver's licence to a Class G(Z) licence.

The Minister based the downgrade on an ongoing police investigation into a bribery scheme involving a driving instructor and test examiners, where the appellant's name and licence photo were found in electronic communications.

The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the police was insufficient to establish that the appellant's road test was corrupted, noting a discrepancy in the dates of the electronic communications.

Given the appellant's clean driving record since obtaining his Class A licence, the Tribunal concluded there was no sufficient reason to downgrade the licence and set aside the Minister's decision.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle for driving while suspended.

He argued he exercised due diligence in determining his licence status and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to establish due diligence, as he took no reasonable steps to verify his licence status after a recent Criminal Code conviction for dangerous operation.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant and his mother had access to public transit as an alternative to the impounded vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend their Class A driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

Following a teleconference hearing, the adjudicator gave oral reasons setting aside the suspension and issued a confidentiality order for certain documents.

The Tribunal ordered the suspension set aside and outlined the process for requesting written reasons.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence and downgrade it to a Class G(Z).

The suspension was based on an OPP investigation into a fraudulent commercial driving examination scheme.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal regarding the licence downgrade.

However, the Tribunal set aside the licence suspension, finding the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence connecting the appellant to the alleged bribery scheme or demonstrating he posed a risk to public safety.

A preliminary motion by the respondent to seal portions of the OPP investigation letters was granted.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a cognitive impairment.

The Registrar relied on medical reports indicating the appellant suffered from mild cognitive impairment and a functional driving assessment that demonstrated driving errors and a lack of driving skills suitable for rehabilitation.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's cognitive impairment is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

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

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing anxiety condition, a new psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the pre-existing condition prevented recovery or that the accident caused a psychological impairment or chronic pain, preferring the respondent's medical assessments.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial notices compliant with the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving his injuries fell outside the MIG, noting that the medical evidence, including insurer examinations, supported a diagnosis of soft tissue injuries with no significant functional limitations.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the applicant's claims for additional chiropractic and psychological treatment plans were denied.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

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

Prior to the hearing, the applicant withdrew all substantive issues, leaving only a preliminary issue regarding whether he was barred from benefits under section 31(1)(a)(i) of the Schedule for operating an uninsured vehicle.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the preliminary issue as a stand-alone matter because the underlying benefits were no longer in dispute.

The respondent's request for costs was dismissed, as the applicant's conduct in withdrawing the issues and arguing the jurisdictional point was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, a concussion assessment, and a psychological assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits, initially relying on the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant proved the physiotherapy and concussion assessment were reasonable and necessary based on clinical notes documenting pain and headaches.

The Tribunal partially approved the concussion assessment and fully approved the physiotherapy plans.

The claim for a psychological assessment balance was dismissed for lack of submissions.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664, finding the insurer's reliance on its medical assessors was reasonable, but awarded interest on overdue payments.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant catastrophically impaired based on a 55% whole person impairment rating.

The respondent argued the Tribunal provided insufficient reasons, reversed the burden of proof regarding psychiatric impairments, and erred in its assessment of musculoskeletal and headache impairments.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the original panel provided comprehensive, logical reasons for preferring the applicant's medical experts and correctly applied the AMA Guides.

No errors of law, fact, or procedural fairness were established.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological and chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent partially denied several treatment plans, arguing that psychotherapists are not entitled to the higher hourly rate of psychologists under the Professional Services Guideline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the higher rate was reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal found that one of the respondent's denial letters violated s. 38(8) of the Schedule by failing to provide reasons for the partial denial, entitling the applicant to $637.07 for that plan.

The remaining claims were dismissed, including two that were barred by the two-year limitation period.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded her income replacement benefits (IRBs) for a specific period ending on her intended retirement date.

She argued the Tribunal erred in law by relying on her former counsel's closing submissions and her testimony regarding her retirement, rather than applying the statutory disability test for ongoing entitlement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no error of law or fact.

The original decision correctly granted the exact relief sought by the applicant's counsel at the hearing, and it was not an error to rely on the applicant's sworn testimony and unambiguous submissions of her counsel.

TD General Insurance Company applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for a lump sum repayment of $17,581.64 in overpaid Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) from the respondent after he was retroactively approved for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits.

The respondent argued for repayment via ongoing IRB deductions, but his IRBs had been suspended under section 57 of the Schedule for failing to attend treatment.

The Tribunal found that because IRBs were not currently being paid, the insurer was entitled to a lump sum repayment under section 52(4) of the Schedule, along with interest under section 52(5).

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her Class A commercial driver's licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar based the suspension on an ongoing OPP investigation into a bribery scheme involving driving instructors and examiners, alleging the appellant's road test may have been compromised.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's licensing process was compromised.

The Tribunal set aside the licence suspension.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's chronic pain and psychological issues pre-dated the accident and were not substantially worsened by it.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's physiatry assessment over the applicant's occupational therapy assessment, noting methodological flaws in the latter.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, and denied the claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664.

The minor applicant was struck by a dump truck while in a stroller in 2010.

He sought statutory accident benefits for various treatment plans, which the respondent insurer denied based on insurer examinations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to optometric services, speech language therapy, and certain assistive devices (a curved monitor and wobble stool), preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating practitioners over the respondent's paper reviews.

However, the Tribunal denied funding for a gaming computer and a YMCA summer camp/membership, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting he returned to work shortly after the accident.

The applicant also argued the respondent failed to comply with the notice provisions under sections 35 and 36 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal held that the respondent's denial of the NEB on the basis that the applicant qualified for an income replacement benefit was valid and compliant with section 36(4).

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award were denied.

The appellant brought a motion for the production of 'as-built' drawings related to an ongoing air leak issue in her home, appealing a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation to deny her claim under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The respondent provided the requested drawings after the motion was filed.

As the documents had already been provided and the appellant did not file reply submissions indicating any missing documents, the Tribunal found the motion moot and dismissed the request for a production order.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove functional impairment due to chronic pain, noting inconsistencies in his self-reported activities of daily living and placing little weight on his physician's chronic pain diagnosis.

Relying on the respondent's psychological assessment, the adjudicator also found no psychological condition warranting removal.

As the injuries were deemed predominantly minor, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.