OLAT 2025

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which were denied by the respondent insurer on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal but failed to provide substantive submissions or evidence for the written hearing, despite a peremptory adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that his injuries fell outside the MIG.

Consequently, the claims for psychological assessments and interest were dismissed.

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

The insurer denied income replacement benefits (IRBs) and took the position that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant was statute-barred from pursuing his IRB claim because he failed to dispute the insurer's clear and unequivocal denial within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant failed to adduce compelling medical evidence of pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological impairments to warrant removal from the MIG.

The disputed assessment plans were denied, and no award for unreasonable delay was granted.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including hospital records, family doctor notes, and an insurer's examination report, indicated the applicant sustained uncomplicated soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's impairments were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

As the MIG limit applied, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits and raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding because she failed to dispute the denial within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The applicant argued the limitation period had not started because the respondent failed to provide a valid notice of denial or request an election of benefits.

The Tribunal found the respondent's denial notices were clear, unequivocal, and compliant with the Schedule.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the LAT Act, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, a substantial delay, and prejudice to the respondent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including clinical notes and records, did not support functional impairment or a psychological condition caused by the accident.

The Tribunal placed little weight on the applicant's expert reports due to inconsistencies and experts opining outside their areas of expertise.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG limits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), a psychiatric assessment, and acupuncture treatment.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, noting a lack of medical evidence connecting his knee pain to the accident and consistent post-accident earnings.

The Tribunal also denied the psychiatric assessment, finding no evidence of psychological complaints prior to July 2023, and denied the acupuncture expenses because they were incurred before a treatment plan was submitted.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to several chiropractic and psychological treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a concussion, chronic pain with functional impairment, or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

Relying on the insurer's multidisciplinary assessments, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to section 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant tendered no evidence and made no submissions, she failed to meet her onus to prove entitlement to the claimed benefits.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the application should be barred under s. 55 of the Schedule because the applicant failed to attend scheduled occupational therapy and neurology insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's notices of assessment failed to provide the mandatory medical and other reasons for the examinations, as required by s. 44(5)(a) of the Schedule.

Because the notices were non-compliant, the applicant was not obligated to attend the examinations and is not barred from proceeding to a hearing.

The applicant sought payment for occupational therapy and rehabilitation therapy treatment plans following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the occupational therapy plan was duplicative of a previously approved plan that had not been exhausted.

The rehabilitation therapy plan was denied due to a lack of compelling medical evidence demonstrating it was reasonable and necessary.

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

Claims for interest and a special award were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded because the appellant was driving while her licence was suspended.

The Tribunal first found that the appellant, as a lessee, was a beneficial owner entitled to appeal.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the impoundment was due to a suspended licence rather than an ignition interlock device violation, and that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

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 she should be removed from the MIG due to psychological impairments and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from a psychological condition or a pre-existing medical condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial notices were compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, except for one which was late but still provided sufficient reasons.

The application was dismissed, and no interest or award was granted.

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

The vehicle was impounded after another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant claimed she needed the vehicle to take her infant son to medical appointments and to attend college classes.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives available, such as public transit and assistance from her mother, and therefore failed to establish exceptional hardship.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought a determination that her accident-related psychological impairments met the definition of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal reviewed expert assessments from both parties and found that while the applicant had a marked impairment in activities of daily living, she only had moderate impairments in concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

As the applicant did not demonstrate a marked impairment in three of the four spheres of functioning, she did not meet the catastrophic impairment threshold.

Consequently, her claims for various medical and rehabilitation benefits were dismissed because the non-catastrophic limits had been exhausted.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and did not warrant removal from the MIG.

However, because the respondent's initial denial letter for the physiotherapy treatment plan failed to provide proper medical reasons as required by s. 38(8) of the Schedule, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for any physiotherapy services incurred during the period of non-compliance.

The claims for the psychological assessment and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant, a minor injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought $4,099.25 for an occupational therapy treatment plan for tutoring services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the tutoring was reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident, noting that medical evidence pointed to ADHD rather than accident-related impairments.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial notice complied with section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed and no interest was awarded.

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

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

The applicant argued that a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, and physical injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a pre-existing condition or a psychological impairment that would preclude recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, subject to the MIG limit, and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded because the appellant was driving while his Ontario driver's licence was suspended.

The appellant argued he held a valid British Columbia driver's licence and was unaware his Ontario licence remained suspended from a 2002 impaired driving conviction due to his failure to complete a remedial program.

The Tribunal found that under s. 36 of the Act, a person suspended in Ontario cannot drive in Ontario using an out-of-province licence.

The Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding the licence was legally suspended at the time.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to a physiotherapy treatment plan (OCF-18), medical expenses, interest, and an award.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by finding the respondent's denial notices complied with section 38 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law, as the denial notices sufficiently identified the denied services and provided adequate reasons.

The Tribunal noted the reconsideration process is not an opportunity to re-litigate disagreements with the original decision.

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).

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to establish that his pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG, or that he suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The application was dismissed.