OLAT 2025

The applicant sought entitlement to various treatment plans and an award under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any written submissions or point to evidence supporting her claims, despite filing a document brief.

The adjudicator found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof and dismissed the claims.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied, as the applicant's failure to file submissions did not amount to serious misconduct.

The self-represented applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a July 2021 motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), a physiotherapy treatment plan, and medication expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to pre-104 week IRBs as he continued to work in various roles after the accident and failed to provide medical evidence of a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks.

Consequently, he did not qualify for post-104 week IRBs.

The Tribunal also denied the physiotherapy treatment plan due to a lack of corroborating medical evidence demonstrating it was reasonable and necessary.

Finally, the Tribunal found the claimed medication expenses had already been paid in full by the respondent.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after allegedly being struck by an e-bike.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the e-bike was an 'automobile' in ordinary parlance or under any relevant statute, such as the Highway Traffic Act.

Consequently, the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' and the application for benefits was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle salesperson and dealer.

The parties reached an agreement and requested a consent order without a hearing, which the Tribunal denied, citing the statutory requirement to hold a hearing under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

Following a hearing on the agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal ordered the jointly proposed conditions, with the exception of one condition deemed unenforceable, to address the appellants' past conduct failures including failure to produce records and trading out of class.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal had previously determined in a 2024 decision that the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant filed a second application based on new medical reports.

The respondent raised the preliminary issue of res judicata.

The Tribunal found that the three preconditions for res judicata were met.

Furthermore, the Tribunal declined to waive the doctrine, finding that the new medical reports did not constitute fresh evidence that would conclusively impeach the original results, as they relied on the applicant's inaccurate self-reporting of her pre-accident condition.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding compensation for defective floor tiles and grout in his new home.

Tarion offered a cash settlement of $1,100, while the appellant sought $14,500 based on an estimate to redo the entire kitchen floor.

The Tribunal found the appellant's estimate disproportionate to the warrantable defects.

However, noting the builder's previous failed repair attempts and the appellant's desire to have the issue fixed rather than receive cash, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under s. 14(19) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to order Tarion to perform or arrange for the repairs itself, using a contractor other than the builder, in lieu of paying damages.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological services and a doctor's visit following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary and relying on an independent psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's treating practitioners provided sufficient corroborating medical evidence of ongoing psychological impairments, including depression and PTSD, to establish that the treatment plan and doctor's visit were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the disputed benefits with interest, but declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664, finding the insurer's conduct did not rise to the level of unreasonableness required.

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

The insurer partially denied several treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, as well as visitor expenses.

The Tribunal found that the insurer failed to provide adequate medical reasons under s. 38(8) of the Schedule for one physiotherapy plan, making the balance payable.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was entitled to a higher hourly rate for a psychotherapist in two psychological treatment plans.

The remaining claims for travel, administrative reports, and visitor expenses were dismissed as they were not reasonable and necessary.

No special award was granted.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as the medical evidence lacked details regarding her pre-accident activities and their frequency.

The Tribunal also denied the physiotherapy treatment plan, finding no medical evidence corroborating physiological complaints that would warrant the treatment.

The application was dismissed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's brother was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as the appellant continued to work and travel using public transit and ride-sharing services.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain assessment, a driving assessment, and physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous and supportive medical evidence to demonstrate that the proposed assessments and treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's medical records showed a significant gap in treatment, and the psychological and chronic pain reports were either outdated or authored long after the requests were made.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, and claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also denied.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were not predominantly minor due to chronic pain, removing him from the Minor Injury Guideline.

However, the Tribunal denied the claims for income replacement benefits and several physiotherapy treatment plans, finding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment and the physiotherapy was not reasonable and necessary.

A treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment was approved.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing their placement in the Minor Injury Guideline and claiming entitlement to chronic pain and psychological assessments.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence.

As the applicant bore the onus of proof, the Tribunal found they failed to demonstrate entitlement to removal from the MIG or to the disputed benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his 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 without a valid licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as he had access to public transit, could walk to the grocery store, and received transportation assistance from family members.

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 matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant's representative withdrew prior to the hearing, and 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 MIG, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including $80.68 for assistive devices and $4,067.76 per month for attendant care benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the respondent correctly applied the non-catastrophic limits under the Schedule and the Professional Services Fee Guideline.

The applicant failed to provide evidence or submissions justifying entitlement beyond the statutory caps.

The claims for benefits, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The matter proceeded to a written hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet their onus to demonstrate entitlement to removal from the MIG or to the disputed medical benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a South Korean citizen in Canada on a temporary Working Holiday visa, was struck by an unidentified motor vehicle and sought statutory accident benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The Fund denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not "ordinarily resident" in Ontario at the time of the accident, as required by s. 25(1) of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ties to Ontario were temporary, she did not have a permanent residence, and she had not demonstrated an intention to remain in Ontario permanently.

Furthermore, there was no evidence that South Korea offered reciprocal coverage to Ontario residents.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services, a concussion assessment, and a neurological assessment following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the chiropractic treatment plan lacked support from treating medical professionals and objective findings.

The Tribunal also found that the concussion and neurological assessments were not reasonable and necessary, as independent medical examinations found no neurological impairment and the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to justify the assessments.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's extensive pre-existing psychological conditions were the primary cause of her impairments, and the accident was not a necessary cause.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, noting the applicant's self-reports were inconsistent with her medical records, which showed improvement post-accident.

The application for catastrophic impairment, non-earner benefits, and other medical benefits was dismissed.