OLAT 2025

The appellant appealed the Registrar's decision to refuse its application for a security guard agency licence.

The Registrar refused the licence based on the involvement of the director's son, who was deemed an 'interested person' with a history of operating a noncompliant and bankrupt security agency.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Registrar's conclusion that the son was an interested person to be reasonable and supported by evidence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the appellant's claims of procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias, confirming the Registrar's decision to refuse the licence.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar to refuse the renewal of the licence of Sunrise Barrie and to revoke the licences of Sunrise Patterson and Sunrise Homes.

The Registrar argued the appellants were ineligible due to past financial misconduct and receiverships of associated corporations.

The Tribunal found that Sunrise Patterson and Sunrise Homes could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke their licences.

However, the Tribunal found that Sunrise Barrie, having been taken over by an equity partner that stabilized its finances and brought it into compliance, could reasonably be expected to be financially responsible.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to renew Sunrise Barrie's licence subject to conditions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found she was not involved in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the incident occurred in two phases and the Tribunal made an error of fact regarding the size of rocks thrown at her.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-litigate her initial arguments and failed to show how the characterization of the rocks impacted the overall conclusions.

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.

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 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 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 the applicant failed to provide evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for an income replacement benefit and various treatment plans, finding the respondent's notices of examination and benefit denials were compliant with the Schedule.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant was barred from proceeding with claims for an income replacement benefit and several treatment plans because he failed to dispute their denials within the two-year limitation period, and declined to extend the time under section 7 of the LAT Act due to lengthy, prejudicial delays.

The Tribunal also dismissed the remaining claims for attendant care benefits and other treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to show the expenses were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG, or that she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit, her claims for a psychological assessment, an award, and interest were dismissed.

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

After the applicant's representative withdrew, the applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence for the scheduled written hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal proceeded with the hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to prove entitlement to the claimed benefits, removal from the Minor Injury Guideline, or an award.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a physiotherapy treatment plan and maintained the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological injury, corroborated by psychometric testing and clinical notes, warranting removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal denied the $4,309.56 physiotherapy treatment plan, finding the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous corroborating evidence that the treatment was reasonable and necessary.

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

The applicant sought post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the 'complete inability' test for post-104-week IRBs, relying on insurer's examinations and surveillance evidence showing her performing work activities.

The Tribunal denied claims for chiropractic services, massage therapy, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's claims for a psychological assessment and a driving reintegration assessment to address her vehicular anxiety, along with interest on those overdue amounts.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, rejecting claims of pre-existing conditions, psychological injury, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's psychological assessment report as it relied solely on self-reporting and contradicted clinical notes.

Consequently, the disputed medical benefits were denied as they exceeded the $3,500 MIG limit.

The claim for income replacement benefits was also dismissed because the applicant had returned to work in a physical role shortly after the accident.

Claims for interest and a section 10 award were dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, noting the medical evidence conflated injuries from the subject accident with a subsequent accident and did not engage with the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG and the monetary limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans for neurological and chronic pain assessments were denied.

Claims for interest and a section 10 award were also dismissed.

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

At the scheduled videoconference hearing, the applicant failed to appear and had not filed a document brief or witness list.

Applicant's counsel made an oral request for an adjournment, citing the sudden hospitalization of the applicant's paralegal representative.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request under Rule 16.2, finding insufficient evidence to establish compelling circumstances or explain why a written request could not have been made prior to the hearing.

As the applicant filed no evidence and made no submissions, the application for benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological treatment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the chiropractic treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of supporting clinical notes and a subsequent unrelated ankle injury.

The Tribunal also denied the claim for an enhanced hourly rate for psychological services, as the applicant did not demonstrate the psychotherapist had training or experience akin to a psychologist to justify the higher rate.

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.

The matter was scheduled for a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence by the deadline and did not properly request an adjournment.

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 pursuant to section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

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, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to the claimed benefits and removal from the MIG, the Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being assaulted and carjacked while backing her vehicle out of a parking space.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the incident met the purpose test, it failed the causation test.

The physical assault by the third party was an intervening act that severed the chain of causation, and the use or operation of the vehicle was not the direct cause of the applicant's impairments.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a non-earner benefit, multiple treatment plans for physiotherapy and assessments, and an award under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent did not participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving entitlement to the non-earner benefit and the treatment plans, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's denial notices complied with section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming unapproved amounts for psychological services and a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the psychotherapist services warranted an hourly rate above the prescribed minimum in the FSRA Professional Services Guidelines.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to support the claims for progress reports, brokerage services, and service planning.

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

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 the applicant failed to establish he met at least three criteria under the AMA Guides for chronic pain, noting insufficient corroborating evidence for his expert's assessment.

The Tribunal also found the applicant unreasonably refused to attend a section 44 insurer's examination.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the funding limits were exhausted, the claims for additional treatment plans, interest, and a section 10 award were dismissed.