OLAT 2026

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

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

The applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence by the deadline.

The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing and found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of demonstrating entitlement to the disputed treatment plans, an award, or interest.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence, despite reminders.

The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing and dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving his injuries were not predominantly minor or that he was entitled to the disputed treatment plans.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services and an in-home attendant care assessment.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The applicant argued that the insurer's denial letters were statutorily deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule for failing to provide sufficient medical reasons.

The Tribunal found that the denial letters met the requirements of s. 38(8) as they provided specific details about the applicant's condition that formed the basis of the decisions, allowing the applicant to make an informed decision to dispute them.

As the applicant provided no medical evidence to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, the claims were dismissed.

Claims for an award and interest were also 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 applicant sought removal from the MIG on the basis of physical injuries, chronic pain, and psychological conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and that the medical evidence did not support a diagnosis of chronic pain or a psychological condition caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, an award, or interest.

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

The insurer denied funding for physiotherapy and medical expenses, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's spine impairments, including disc bulges and an annular tear, as well as chronic pain with functional impairment, placed him outside the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the disputed treatment plan, medical expenses, and interest on the overdue amounts.

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.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline or that she was entitled to the disputed treatment plans and interest.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries, including chronic pain and whiplash-associated disorder, warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the claim, relying on insurer's examinations indicating the injuries were minor soft-tissue strains and the applicant maintained a high level of functionality, working full-time as a dentist.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate his injuries fell outside the MIG or that he suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plan for chiropractic services was not payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after sustaining an exacerbation of a pre-existing back injury while riding as a passenger in a Wheel-Trans vehicle.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' and that the applicant was barred from proceeding due to late notification.

The Tribunal found that the incident met the purpose and causation tests for an accident, as the injuries were directly caused by the unsafe operation of the vehicle.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for her delayed notification, noting her lack of sophistication and the TTC's delay in advising her of her rights.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries warranted removal from the MIG due to chronic pain with functional limitations and psychological injuries, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating professionals over the insurer's assessors.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed chiropractic services, psychological assessment, and psychological treatment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The claims for physiatry and orthopedic assessments were dismissed as the applicant had already been diagnosed with chronic pain and failed to prove their necessity.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments.

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) and the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his injuries fell outside the MIG, as there was insufficient evidence of chronic pain with functional impairment, psychological injury, or exacerbation of pre-existing conditions.

Because the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a concussion and psychological impairment, as well as entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence did not support a concussion or psychological impairment, keeping the applicant within the MIG and denying the treatment plans.

Although the applicant failed to meet the substantive test for IRBs, the Tribunal awarded IRBs from February 27, 2023, to April 14, 2023, because the insurer failed to respond to the disability certificate within the required 10 business days under s. 36(4) of the Schedule.

Claims for an award were dismissed.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant's counsel removed himself from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The self-represented applicant subsequently failed to file her written submissions.

The adjudicator proceeded with the hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of demonstrating entitlement to the disputed treatment plans, an award, or interest.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans, prompting the applicant to apply to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the applicant was statute-barred from pursuing one occupational therapy treatment plan because she failed to attend a properly scheduled insurer's examination without a reasonable explanation.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a driving assessment and a dietician assessment because the respondent failed to provide proper notice of denial under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Another occupational therapy plan was partially approved based on medical evidence supporting the need for cognitive and psycho-emotional support.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG, and claimed entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) and various physiotherapy treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG, or that she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the IRB claim as the applicant provided no evidence regarding her inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly soft-tissue injuries and failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition sufficient to remove him from the MIG.

The application for disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for hearing aids costing $5,620.00 following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the expense.

The Tribunal found that the hearing aids were not reasonable and necessary, as medical records indicated the hearing loss was primarily due to guitar playing noise exposure rather than the accident.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to submit a treatment plan prior to incurring the expense, contrary to section 38(2) of the Schedule, and no exceptions applied.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought $1,153.17 for assistive devices under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed assistive devices, including a raised toilet seat, tub transfer bench, and grab bar, were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant demonstrated independence in transfers and personal care, and there was no corroborating medical opinion recommending the items for safety.

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

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing chronic pain and a diagnosis of spinal stenosis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing condition would prevent recovery within the MIG, noting that post-accident clinical records showed no exacerbation of his condition.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the applicant sustained soft tissue injuries treatable within the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for chiropractic services, a chronic pain assessment, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, sought accident benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, claiming removal was warranted due to a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence that her pre-existing mechanical back pain prevented recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, finding no psychological impairment or chronic pain resulting from the accident.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were denied, and claims for a special award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied him substantive benefits after he failed to file written submissions.

Two days before the submission deadline, the applicant's counsel removed himself from the record.

A family member contacted the Tribunal requesting an extension of time to obtain new counsel due to the applicant's language barrier and inability to navigate the process.

The hearing adjudicator was seemingly unaware of this request and proceeded to dismiss the claims.

The Vice-Chair found that proceeding with the hearing under these circumstances constituted a material breach of procedural fairness.

The reconsideration request was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and a rehearing before a different adjudicator was ordered.