OLAT 2025

The appellant appealed a decision by the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying his claim for compensation regarding alleged defects in his new home's kitchen cabinets and a wooden balcony support post.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove the cabinet stain colour differed from his design centre selection or that the cracks in the wooden post constituted a structural deficiency under the Ontario Building Code.

Although the Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the builder for surreptitiously filling the post cracks prior to the conciliation assessment, this was insufficient to establish a structural defect.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was not entitled to payment from the guarantee fund.

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 argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic back pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment, relying on contemporaneous medical records showing resolved muscle pain and minimal medication use.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissing the claims for treatment plans and interest.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his cannabis retail manager licence.

The Registrar issued the proposal after the appellant repeatedly obstructed AGCO inspectors during compliance inspections, yelled profanities, forced them out of his store, and sent abusive and threatening messages.

The Tribunal found the appellant's conduct egregious and concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe he would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, or the public interest.

The Tribunal confirmed the proposal and directed the revocation of the licence.

The applicant sought payment for the outstanding balances of seven partially approved treatment plans, specifically the 'PR' charges for document support activity.

The respondent had reduced these charges to a one-hour 'HR' rate without providing medical or other reasons, citing only section 25 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the respondent failed to comply with the notice requirements under section 38(8) of the Schedule and ordered payment of the outstanding balances with interest.

The applicant's request for a section 10 award was dismissed, as the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of being excessive or imprudent.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to disputed treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred by relying on Catic to find that the insurer's late denials did not trigger mandatory payment under s. 38(11) of the Schedule because the plans were not incurred.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness or jurisdictional error, and affirmed that the adjudicator correctly applied binding Divisional Court precedent regarding the interaction between s. 38(8) and s. 38(11).

The applicant sought statutory accident 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 applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to pre-existing scoliosis and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a documented pre-existing condition, there was no compelling medical evidence that it precluded his recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of chronic pain with functional impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying her entitlement to statutory accident benefits.

The original adjudicator dismissed the claim because the applicant failed to provide written submissions, despite filing document briefs.

The applicant argued this was an error of fact and a breach of procedural fairness.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the adjudicator correctly recognized the document briefs and properly concluded that documentary evidence alone, without accompanying submissions to point out key evidence, is insufficient to establish entitlement to benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal first held that the applicant was statute-barred from disputing the denial of 14 treatment plans because he failed to apply within the two-year limitation period and did not establish grounds for an extension under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 (falling short of the 55% whole person impairment threshold) or Criterion 8 (failing to establish marked impairments in three spheres of functioning).

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the remaining treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary onus to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently dismissed.

The appellant sought a refund of a $100,000 deposit paid for a new home, arguing the vendor fundamentally breached the agreement of purchase and sale by obstructing her assignment rights, providing substandard finishes, and issuing a notice of anticipatory breach.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the vendor did not obstruct the assignment, the alleged defects were material rather than fundamental breaches, and the anticipatory breach notice did not deprive the appellant of the whole benefit of the contract.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was not entitled to payment from the guarantee fund.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from claiming an income replacement benefit due to the expiry of the two-year limitation period, as the insurer's denial was clear and unequivocal.

The Tribunal determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) as there was insufficient evidence of physical or psychological impairments warranting removal.

However, several treatment plans were deemed payable because the insurer's denial notices failed to comply with the specificity requirements of s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Claims for other treatment plans and an award were dismissed.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to the disputed benefits and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline, the Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

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 matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence, despite multiple notices from the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.

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

The applicant sought 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 matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the evidentiary burden to demonstrate entitlement to removal from the MIG or the disputed benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, as she failed to establish that her psychological impairments would not have occurred 'but for' the accident, noting a significant time gap and high level of functioning in the intervening years.

The Tribunal granted entitlement to several treatment plans for occupational therapy, assistive devices, and assessments incurred prior to the 260-week mark, but denied plans submitted after that period and denied the claim for living accommodations due to non-compliance with section 38(2) of the Schedule.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence, and did not file a Notice of Withdrawal.

The adjudicator proceeded with the hearing and found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of demonstrating entitlement to the disputed medical benefits, award, and interest.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought catastrophic impairment benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent scheduled multiple insurer's examinations (IEs) under section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which the applicant failed to attend.

The respondent brought a preliminary issue hearing arguing the application should be dismissed under section 55(1)2 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent provided valid notices of examination and made reasonable accommodation efforts.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her non-attendance, as her family physician's notes stating she was unfit to attend were contradicted by her attendance at other medical appointments.

The Tribunal held the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding and dismissed the application.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

A written hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to the benefits and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet this burden.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, interest, and an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's multidisciplinary insurer's examination reports, which showed the applicant retained functional capacity and continued to engage in self-care and childcare, over the applicant's incomplete disability certificate.

As no benefits were payable, the claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support either a psychological injury or chronic pain condition resulting from the accident.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the funding limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not considered.

The claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision granting the applicant entitlement to a chronic pain assessment.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred by finding that only psychologists and psychiatrists could provide expert opinion evidence on chronic pain, thereby improperly discounting the evidence of its general practitioner and orthopaedic surgeon.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding the Tribunal erred in its treatment of the medical experts.

Upon rehearing the issue, the Vice-Chair weighed the competing medical evidence and concluded that the applicant's ongoing reports of pain and diagnosis of somatic symptom disorder provided reasonable grounds to warrant a chronic pain assessment.

The treatment plan was deemed reasonable and necessary.