OLAT 2026

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

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, as he failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment warranting removal.

Although subject to the MIG, the Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay for a $4,959.75 psychological treatment plan because the Respondent failed to comply with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Claims for other treatment plans and a special award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various treatment and assessment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that he should be removed from the MIG due to a psychological impairment (Generalized Anxiety Disorder) and chronic pain with central sensitization.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a psychological impairment, noting that his family doctor consistently recorded his mental health as stable and he did not attend referred group counselling.

The Tribunal also rejected the chronic pain claim, finding that the applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain syndrome and that surveillance evidence showed him performing physical activities inconsistent with functional impairment.

As the injuries were deemed predominantly minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship as he required the vehicle to commute to his job as a truck driver and could not afford alternative transportation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative to the use of his vehicle and that continued impoundment would result in immediate, significant, and enduring economic and employment hardship.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied certain treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to properly assess medical evidence, including diagnostic imaging showing a partial tear, and his psychological symptoms.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-weigh the evidence rather than identifying a material error of law or fact.

The Vice-Chair noted that a partial tear is considered a minor injury under the Schedule and that the Tribunal had adequately considered the evidence in its original decision.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle after it was driven by a friend with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as he took no reasonable steps to verify the driver's licence status beyond a casual glance a year prior.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to alternative transportation, including a work truck and taxi services.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, catastrophic impairment assessments, and physiotherapy treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims.

The non-earner benefit claim was statute-barred due to the late submission of the disability certificate and the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The catastrophic impairment assessments were denied as the applicant provided insufficient medical evidence to justify the need for further investigation.

The physiotherapy claims were dismissed because the applicant failed to address the specific provider rates in dispute.

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting a lack of objective medical evidence supporting functional impairment or psychological disability.

The Tribunal relied on independent medical examinations and the applicant's own family physician records, which did not substantiate the claimed impairments.

As the applicant was confined to the MIG limits, the claims for additional treatment plans, interest, and a punitive award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a severe motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits (ACB) and medical expenses, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to ACB at the non-catastrophic maximum of $3,000 per month for a closed period, deeming the expenses incurred because the insurer unreasonably withheld payment during that time.

The Tribunal also approved a treatment plan for optometric services to investigate ongoing vision impairments and awarded partial reimbursement for prescription medications, an ambulance bill, and replacement glasses submitted on various OCF-6 forms.

Claims for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 were dismissed, but interest was awarded on all overdue benefits.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for a 'howling' noise in a shower.

Prior to the conciliation inspection, the appellant hired a plumber to install pressure reducing valves to mitigate the noise without authorization from the builder or Tarion.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's unilateral alteration of the plumbing system deprived Tarion of the ability to accurately assess the original condition, thereby voiding the warranty under s. 13(2)(g) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant appealed a Director's order cancelling its Tow Operator and Vehicle Storage Certificates under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021.

The cancellation was primarily based on an employee recording and sharing a video of a fatal collision scene depicting human remains, along with Highway Traffic Act violations and operating after the cancellation order.

The Tribunal found the appellant and its employees breached the Code of Conduct and contravened the Act.

However, considering the appellant's 35-year history and community support, the Tribunal modified the cancellation to a suspension pending compliance with specific terms and conditions, including implementing policies against recording collision scenes and completing mental health training.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship to his landscaping and snow removal business.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son drove it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The Tribunal noted the appellant owned a second truck that could be fitted with the necessary attachments.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation granting them $7,500 in compensation for a delayed closing of their new home.

The appellants sought $278,244.60 in compensation, arguing that the builder breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the mandatory Addendum.

The Tribunal held a preliminary issue hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction to award compensation exceeding the $7,500 maximum set out in s. 7(2) of Regulation 165/08 under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal found that it does not have jurisdiction to award compensation beyond the statutory maximum, and that claims for breach of contract outside the Act's warranty framework must be pursued in the Superior Court of Justice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically a $3,861.20 physiotherapy treatment plan.

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

The applicant argued the respondent's denial notice violated s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the denial notice was compliant, as referencing the MIG is a valid medical reason for denial.

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

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as she did not verify the driver's licence status at the time of the incident.

Furthermore, the appellant was precluded from claiming exceptional hardship due to a previous vehicle impoundment.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The parties resolved the catastrophic impairment and attendant care benefits issues prior to the written hearing.

The remaining issues were entitlement to guardianship application fees, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The respondent agreed to pay the guardianship fees.

The Tribunal found the respondent unreasonably delayed payment of enhanced attendant care benefits and the guardianship fees, ordering an award of 25% and 18% respectively, plus interest.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a treatment plan for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with the claim for a non-earner benefit because he failed to attend reasonably necessary insurer examinations without a reasonable explanation, and the insurer's notice of examination was compliant with s. 44 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for the treatment plan, finding the applicant failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary, and that the insurer had provided a valid denial notice under s. 38(8).

Claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, social work counselling, and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

At the hearing, the applicant called no witnesses and provided no documentary evidence or submissions to support the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment plans.

The Tribunal admitted the disputed treatment plans into evidence over the respondent's objection but ultimately dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden.

The Applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Respondent suspended the IRBs on two occasions, alleging the Applicant failed to provide requested employment and medical information under section 33 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had provided sufficient information to calculate the IRBs and had a reasonable explanation for any delays, noting she was facing homelessness.

The Tribunal ordered the Respondent to pay the withheld IRBs with interest, and granted a 30% award under section 10 of Regulation 664 for unreasonably delaying payment.

The Applicant's request for costs was denied.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons after receiving two unsolicited Medical Condition Reports indicating a substance use disorder involving cocaine.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal noted the appellant had not abstained from cocaine for the required 12-month period nor completed a rehabilitation program.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence, nor did they file a Notice of Withdrawal.

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

As the applicant bore the onus of proof and provided no evidence, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove their injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline or that they were entitled to the disputed treatment plans.

The application was dismissed.