OLAT 2025

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and costs for psychological assessments and services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the test for a non-earner benefit, as he failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Tribunal granted the costs for the psychological assessment and services, finding that the additional hours billed for interpretation services and planning due to the applicant's language barrier were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed, as the insurer's conduct was not found to be unreasonable.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after an employee was caught driving it without a mandatory ignition interlock device.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment, as the employee took it without authorization outside of work hours for personal use, contrary to company policy.

The Tribunal found that the employee intended to temporarily deprive the appellant of the vehicle, satisfying the definition of 'stolen' under the Act.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed under s. 48.3 of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to provide a suitable breath sample.

The appellant argued she was unable to comply with the breath demand due to medical reasons, specifically asthma, a recent respiratory illness, and anxiety.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's medical evidence, consisting of a letter from her family physician, to be vague and insufficient to establish that she was medically unable to provide a sample.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the breath technician, who testified that the appellant made 18 attempts without blowing sufficient air, despite showing no signs of respiratory distress.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant entitled to non-earner benefits.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact regarding the quantum of benefits, the lack of direct evidence, and the cause of the applicant's inability, and that it breached procedural fairness by relying on arguments not advanced by the parties.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no material breach of procedural fairness and no error of law or fact that would have led to a different result.

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence under s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the employee's licence status prior to the impoundment, as the office manager had authorized the vehicle's use without checking the licence or confirming its validity with the insurer.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition report diagnosing him with alcohol use disorder.

The appellant argued the diagnosis was incorrect and that his alcohol use did not interfere with his driving.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's recent two-week binge drinking episode and subsequent hospitalization for withdrawal supported the diagnosis.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded the appellant had not abstained from alcohol for a sufficient period and lacked medical support for reinstatement.

The licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed after he failed to provide a breath sample at the police station.

The appellant argued he was unable to provide a sample due to a medical reason, specifically acid reflux for which he takes medication.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that his medical condition impaired his ability to provide a breath sample, noting his own testimony that neither his medication nor his acid reflux prevented him from blowing into the breathalyzer.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, chiropractic services, and a psychological assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the non-earner benefits, finding the applicant was able to carry on a normal life and had pre-existing conditions.

The psychological assessment was also denied based on a section 44 assessment showing no psychological impairment.

However, the Tribunal approved the chiropractic services treatment plan, finding it reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also granted a section 10 award of 50% of the chiropractic benefits, finding the insurer unreasonably withheld payment by relying on a section 44 assessment that it knew would deny the claim based on minor injury guidelines, despite the applicant not being confined to those guidelines.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB) and various treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by requiring her to prove IRB entitlement after finding an accident occurred, and by not assessing whether the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law, as the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden for the IRB and the treatment plans were not incurred.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The insurer argued the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and breached procedural fairness because only the quantum of the IRB, not ongoing entitlement, was in dispute.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the application, case conference report, and the parties' own submissions clearly indicated that ongoing entitlement was a live issue.

The adjudicator confirmed there was no error of law or breach of procedural fairness.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's assessors, finding no psychiatric diagnosis or chronic pain attributable to the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, the MIG limit applied, and dismissed the claims for further treatment, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The respondent, Tarion Warranty Corporation, brought a motion to add the builder as a party to the appellant's warranty claim appeal.

The builder argued it had a significant interest due to reputational and financial risks, including potential indemnification claims.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the builder's substantive rights would not be impeded by the decision and that adding the builder would unnecessarily complicate the consumer protection proceeding.

The builder's request for costs was also dismissed as it was not a party and the appellant's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for a missing stone skirt around the entire perimeter of their new home.

The appellants argued that the building plans submitted to the municipality showed a stone skirt around the whole house.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale did not obligate the builder to install a stone skirt around the entire house, and the building plans did not form part of the contract.

As the builder was not contractually obligated to provide the stone skirt, there was no breach of warranty.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claim.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse to renew his horseperson licence under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015.

The Registrar based its proposal on the appellant's past conduct, which included recent criminal convictions for publishing an intimate image without consent, peace bonds for assault and criminal harassment, numerous workplace security incidents, and an altercation at the Steward's office.

The Tribunal found that the recency and seriousness of the criminal charges, combined with the appellant's ongoing probation and peace bonds, established reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty, integrity, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's proposal to refuse the licence renewal.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a reported medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant had a history of alcohol use disorder, the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the condition was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence of abstinence and her family doctor's recommendation for reinstatement.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was set aside.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she was not removed from the Minor Injury Guideline and denied her claims for treatment plans and clinical notes and records.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by failing to properly weigh medical evidence regarding her psychological impairments.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the case and re-weigh the evidence, which are not valid grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the suspension of his driver's licence due to an alcohol use disorder.

The appellant argued that the adjudicators erred and breached procedural fairness by relying on a Medical Condition Report that was missing a mandatory street address, while disregarding another report that lacked a signature.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the adjudicators had properly weighed the evidence and that the appellant was improperly attempting to re-litigate the case and reweigh the evidence.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for an income replacement indemnity and a pain and suffering indemnity following a motor vehicle accident in Quebec.

The applicant alleged errors of law and fact, as well as a breach of procedural fairness, under Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish any errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome of the original decision, noting the lack of medical evidence to support his claims.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a mental health condition and substance use disorder.

The appellant did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that medical evidence, including reports of recent hospitalizations for cannabis-induced psychosis, established that the appellant suffered from conditions likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded that a confirmed period of disease stability and abstinence was required.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and notified the insurer on the same day, resulting in a property damage claim.

Over four years later, the applicant sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was statute-barred under s. 32(1) of the Schedule for failing to report injuries or an intention to claim benefits within seven days.

Applying the Divisional Court's binding decision in Hussein v. Intact, the Tribunal found that reporting the accident itself satisfied the notice requirement under s. 32(1).

The insurer failed to fulfill its reciprocal obligation under s. 32(2) to inquire about injuries and provide application forms.

Consequently, the applicant was not statute-barred and was permitted to proceed to a substantive hearing.