OLAT 2025

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a 2017 motor vehicle accident, sought attendant care benefits (ACBs) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant entitled to ACBs for specific periods based on his psychological impairments, but held the benefits were not payable because the applicant failed to prove they were incurred.

The Tribunal partially approved treatment plans for social work, aquatherapy, concussion treatment, and a home renovation assessment, while denying others that were reasonably available through OHIP.

The Tribunal ordered Aviva to pay a special award of $9,041.12 under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding that the insurer acted unreasonably and in bad faith by pre-emptively denying treatment plans and failing to comply with procedural timelines.

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

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that chronic pain and functional impairment warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of chronic pain or functional impairment.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted, the claim for the chiropractic treatment plan and interest was dismissed.

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 chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including clinical notes and OCF forms, insufficient to establish chronic pain or psychological injury caused by the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit, which had been exhausted.

The claims for treatment plans, an award, and interest were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries warranted removal from the MIG due to a diagnosis of accident-related post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Tribunal approved two disputed physiotherapy treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, the applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as he failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, lacking sufficient evidence of his pre-accident activities.

A claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was also dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for the unapproved balance of a multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had approved the assessments up to the $2,000 per modality limit but denied additional fees for file reviews and transportation.

The Tribunal found that file review fees are an essential component of an assessment and are captured within the $2,000 funding limit.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant was not entitled to transportation expenses because she lived within the 50 km deductible radius and had withdrawn her claim for a catastrophic impairment determination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits and payment for two treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's testimony lacked credibility and the medical evidence, including surveillance and family physician records, demonstrated she did not require the claimed attendant care.

The Tribunal also denied the treatment plans, noting a lack of evidence for the first and finding the second sought unreasonable duplicate fees for catastrophic impairment assessments under section 25(5) of the Schedule.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act for driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence in attempting to determine his licence status, relying on a driver record search from March 2025 that showed he was licensed, and his subsequent successful licence renewal in April 2025.

The Tribunal found the appellant took reasonable actions to determine he was properly licensed and that the respondent's suspension letter was issued just days before the impoundment with no proof of delivery.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), income replacement benefits (IRBs), and approval of treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries, including alleged chronic pain and psychological impairments, warranted removal from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a warehouse worker.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently dismissed.

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 and seeking a non-earner benefit and various medical benefits.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet his evidentiary burden to demonstrate entitlement to the disputed benefits or removal from the Minor Injury Guideline.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed administrative penalty orders issued by the Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority for selling a new home without a licence.

The appellants purchased a pre-construction home, took possession, and listed it for sale within days without ever occupying it.

The Tribunal found the appellants acted as unlicensed vendors in contravention of the New Home Construction Licencing Act, 2017.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' arguments that the investigation was procedurally unfair and violated their Charter rights.

However, the Tribunal varied the administrative penalty from $99,150.77 to $66,492.13 per appellant to account for additional costs incurred during the sale.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit, interest, and an award following a motor vehicle accident.

The matter was scheduled for a written hearing.

The applicant's representative withdrew, and the applicant subsequently failed to file any submissions or respond to Tribunal communications.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement and provided no evidence or submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant sought entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, an attendant care assessment, and an award under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as there was insufficient evidence comparing his pre- and post-accident activities.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports which indicated the applicant had returned to his activities of daily living and sustained only minor injuries.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The respondent, Tarion Warranty Corporation, requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision awarding the appellant damages for a breach of warranty regarding a front door substitution.

Tarion argued the Tribunal erred in fact and law by awarding damages that included installation and reframing costs rather than just the difference in material value between the two doors.

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

The Tribunal confirmed that the substituted door could not be installed without structural modifications, making the installation costs a reasonable component of the damages for the breach of warranty.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit of $400 per week.

The respondent paid $23.49 per week for the first 104 weeks and $185 per week thereafter.

The dispute centered on the calculation of the applicant's pre-accident income, as he was self-employed.

The Tribunal found that under s. 4(3) of the Schedule, the applicant's income must be calculated using the last completed tax year, rather than the 52 weeks prior to the accident under s. 4(2)2.

As the applicant had no self-employment income in the 2021 tax year, the respondent's calculation of $23.49 per week was correct.

The claims for an award and interest were 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 and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the burden of proof for removal from the MIG.

The medical evidence, including clinical notes and records, did not support a diagnosis of chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition caused by the accident.

Furthermore, surveillance evidence contradicted the applicant's claims of functional limitation.

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

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

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report indicating the appellant suffered from alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant does suffer from mild alcohol use disorder, the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's lifestyle changes, abstinence from alcohol, and support from his family doctor.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found her claim for an income replacement benefit (IRB) was statute-barred due to the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by misinterpreting a tolling agreement, violating the parol evidence rule, failing to consider an extension of time under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, and improperly awarding costs against her.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues and raise new arguments not presented at the initial hearing.

The Tribunal concluded there was no error of law or fact in its interpretation of the tolling agreement, its refusal to grant an extension of time, or its costs award.

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 respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was statute-barred because the applicant failed to dispute the denials within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The applicant requested an extension of time under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

Applying the Manuel test, the adjudicator found that the applicant did not demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, provided no explanation for the significant delay, and failed to show that the respondent would not be prejudiced.

The adjudicator declined to exercise discretion to extend the limitation period, barring the applicant from proceeding to a hearing.

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 psychological impairments and a concussion.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence connecting the applicant's psychological issues or alleged concussion to the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, subject to the MIG limit, and dismissed the claims for treatment plans, an award, and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, medical benefits, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The respondent approved the medical benefits prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he did not provide evidence of his pre-accident activities or how they were restricted.

The claim for a non-earner benefit and the request for an award were dismissed.