OLAT 2025

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to attend the videoconference hearing or provide submissions.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application as abandoned, which the Tribunal denied, opting instead to proceed with the hearing in the applicant's absence under s. 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant presented no evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for benefits, interest, and an award.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request for costs, finding that the applicant's mere failure to participate did not constitute unreasonable conduct warranting a costs award against a self-represented party.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision confirming his driver's licence suspension under the Highway Traffic Act.

He argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by admitting late-filed evidence and erred in its assessment of his impairment and medical condition.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the appellant had sufficient time to review the evidence.

The Tribunal also found no error in the original panel's conclusion that the appellant failed to prove he was not impaired by a drug, which rendered the medical condition analysis unnecessary.

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 she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment, noting her pre-existing conditions and lack of functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

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

The respondent insurer scheduled multiple insurer's examinations under s. 44 of the Schedule to assess the applicant's entitlement to benefits.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled examinations and did not provide a reasonable explanation for her non-attendance.

The Tribunal found that the notices of examination were proper and that the applicant's failure to attend barred her from proceeding with her application pursuant to s. 55(1)2 of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit (IRB), following a motor vehicle accident.

In a prior application, the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the IRB.

The applicant subsequently filed a new application claiming an IRB and a catastrophic impairment determination.

The respondent argued the IRB claim was barred by res judicata.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the preconditions for res judicata were met and the applicant failed to establish that the doctrine should be waived based on fresh evidence or fairness.

The applicant was barred from proceeding with the IRB claim.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and approval of two treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent provided evidence that the treatment plans had already been approved and the income replacement benefits had been reinstated and subsequently increased.

As the applicant failed to file written submissions or adduce evidence to support a claim for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664, the application was dismissed.

The Applicant sought various medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident, as well as an award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Adjudicator found that the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that the proposed chiropractic, physiotherapy, psychological, and occupational therapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Adjudicator preferred the evidence of the insurer's examination assessors, who found no objective evidence of ongoing musculoskeletal impairment and noted a lack of response to past physical treatments.

Claims for attendant care benefits and an award were also dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to various treatment plans following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders), noting marked impairments in social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

However, the Tribunal denied all claimed treatment plans because the applicant failed to direct the panel to medical evidence supporting their reasonableness and necessity.

The respondent's claim for repayment of previously funded services was also dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a treatment plan for chiropractic services, a gym membership, and an ambulance fee.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove the chiropractic services and gym membership were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also found the gym membership was not submitted via a treatment plan as required by s. 38(2) of the Schedule, and the ambulance fee had not been submitted to the applicant's extended health carrier as required by s. 47(2).

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal assessed her physical and psychological impairments under Criteria 7 and 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant's Whole Person Impairment rating was 41%, falling short of the 55% threshold, and that she suffered only moderate, not marked or extreme, psychological impairments.

Claims for a non-earner benefit, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence and failure to meet the respective legal tests.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2012 motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment and was entitled to non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criterion 7, nor did she demonstrate the required marked impairments under Criterion 8.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, noting the applicant successfully attends university full-time and maintains part-time employment.

The claims for catastrophic impairment and non-earner benefits were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued that the respondent's denial notices did not comply with s. 38(8) of the Schedule and that he was therefore entitled to the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's denial notices were valid and compliant with the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and a determination that her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to determine the MIG issue as a standalone dispute without a related claim for medical or rehabilitation benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment within 104 weeks of the accident, noting she had stopped working for unrelated reasons prior to the accident and did not seek medical treatment for accident-related injuries until over four years later.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found no compelling medical evidence that the applicant's physical soft tissue injuries or alleged psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, noting the applicant's assessor was not qualified to provide a psychological diagnosis.

The application was dismissed.

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 provide sufficient medical evidence to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

Consequently, her claims for a psychological assessment, chiropractic treatment, and ambulance services were dismissed.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant did not establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she failed to provide a comparative analysis of her pre- and post-accident activities.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent suspended IRBs due to the applicant's failure to provide requested financial documentation under s. 33 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the 59-month delay in producing the documents, barring entitlement during the non-compliance period.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for the post-104 week period, noting she was off work due to maternity leaves rather than accident-related impairments.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant owned a second vehicle (a 2024 Dodge truck) that could satisfy all of her family's transportation needs.

As the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, she could not prove exceptional hardship.

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

The respondent denied the benefit and requested insurer examinations under section 44 of the Schedule.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she provided no comparative evidence of her pre- and post-accident activities and relied solely on an OCF-3.

The adjudicator accepted the conclusions of the respondent's insurer examination assessors and dismissed the application, including claims for interest and an award.

The applicant sought payment for two chiropractic treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans on the basis that the applicant was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and had exhausted the limit.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant had not been removed from the MIG and did not dispute the MIG issue on this application, an analysis of whether the plans were reasonable and necessary was unwarranted.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent's request for $1,000 in costs was also dismissed, as the applicant's conduct did not meet the threshold for a costs award under Rule 19.

The applicant was struck by a reversing snow plow tractor (a backhoe with a snow plow attached) in a mall parking lot and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule because the snow plow was not an 'automobile'.

Applying the three-part test from Adams, the Tribunal found that the backhoe was not an automobile in ordinary parlance, was not defined as such in the insurance policy, and did not meet the enlarged definition in any relevant statute.

The application was dismissed.