OLAT 2026

The appellants appealed a decision by the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying multiple claim items under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act regarding their new condominium unit.

The Tribunal reviewed 25 disputed claim items relating to workmanship, materials, and fitness for habitation.

The Tribunal found that only two items—a shower wall where tiles were not flush (claim item 34) and an unlevel dishwasher installation (claim item 41)—constituted breaches of warranty.

The remaining claims were dismissed for failing to meet the burden of proof, falling outside the statutory warranty, or not constituting defects under the Construction Performance Guidelines.

The appellants were awarded $2,663.31 from the guarantee fund.

The applicant sought a medical benefit for physiotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that she sustained a concussion or that a pre-existing condition precluded her recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal upheld the respondent's denial under section 38(5) of the Schedule, noting that such a refusal is final and not subject to review under section 38(6).

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

The applicant, a minor, 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 Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a pre-existing condition, a physical impairment (concussion), or a psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

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

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant insurer suspended the respondent's non-earner benefits after the respondent failed to provide an updated disability certificate and attend insurer's examinations following a prior Tribunal decision granting ongoing benefits.

The respondent argued that section 281 of the Insurance Act prohibited the insurer from reducing benefits after a Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal held that section 281 does not override the insured's ongoing obligation to provide information under section 33 of the Schedule or attend examinations under section 37.

The suspension of benefits was found to be valid, and the claim for an award was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and notified the insurer, but failed to submit his completed Application for Accident Benefits (OCF-1) until more than three years later.

The insurer argued the claim was time-barred under section 32(5) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay, as the insurer's communications failed to clearly convey the consequences of not submitting the form within 30 days.

The Tribunal held that the insurer's ambiguous language led the applicant to believe his claims would be considered whenever the form was submitted, and the resulting prejudice to the insurer was caused by its own actions.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with his claim.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $400 per week, claiming an inability to work as a self-employed auto mechanic and cleaner.

The respondent denied the benefit, arguing the applicant's inability to work was due to pre-existing mental health and substance abuse issues rather than the soft tissue injuries sustained in the accident.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not support an accident-related impairment impacting the applicant's ability to work, noting inconsistencies in his testimony and a failure to produce ordered medical and employment records.

The application for IRBs, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2011 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed entitlement to assistive devices (including an iPhone and Apple Watch, and incontinence supplies), prescription medication, mileage expenses, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to incontinence supplies and one claim for mileage expenses, as they were reasonable and necessary.

The claims for the iPhone, Apple Watch, prescription medication, and remaining mileage expenses were dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was also dismissed, but interest was awarded on the outstanding amounts.

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

The respondent denied the claims 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 insufficient medical evidence to support a chronic pain diagnosis or a psychological condition, noting a significant gap in treatment and reliance on self-reported symptoms.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial notices complied with the Schedule.

The application was dismissed, and no treatment plans, interest, or awards were payable.

The applicant sought various treatment and assessment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal denied the physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment plans, finding them not reasonable and necessary due to a lack of contemporaneous corroborating medical evidence.

The Tribunal approved a neurological assessment and a chronic pain assessment, noting ongoing headache complaints and a combination of physical and psychological injuries.

An attendant care assessment was denied as the applicant was independent in his activities of daily living.

The claim for a special award was dismissed because the insurer relied on independent medical experts.

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

The insurer denied a treatment plan and required the applicant to attend orthopaedic and psychological insurer's examinations under s. 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant failed to attend both examinations.

The insurer argued the applicant was barred from proceeding under s. 55(1)2.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for her non-attendance and that the notices of examination complied with s. 44(5).

The Tribunal held the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding and dismissed the application.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The respondent denied several treatment plans and assessments, often imposing hourly rates on services proposed as block fees.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Schedule and Guidelines do not mandate the application of hourly rates to block fees for assessments and form completion.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the disputed amounts for the occupational therapy assessment, physiotherapy, chiropractic treatment, orthopaedic assessment, and psychological assessment.

The claim for medical services was dismissed due to a lack of submissions.

The Tribunal also awarded a 25% special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed benefits by arbitrarily imposing hourly rates and maintaining denials based on misinterpretations.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized when her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she relied on assumptions rather than verifying her son's licence status.

The Tribunal also found the impoundment would not cause exceptional hardship, as the appellant failed to demonstrate that she had explored all reasonable transportation alternatives, including assistance from other family members or renting a vehicle.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claim for attendant care benefits up to the date of the decision but failed to address her claim for ongoing benefits.

The Vice-Chair found that the Tribunal made an error of fact or law under Rule 18.2(b) by not explicitly determining the issue of ongoing entitlement, which had been properly raised.

The reconsideration was granted, and the issue of ongoing attendant care benefits was ordered to be reheard by a new adjudicator based on the original written submissions.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a concussion, which is not a minor injury, removing her from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal dismissed claims for income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and several treatment plans, largely due to a lack of evidence connecting the impairments to the subject accident rather than a subsequent accident.

Two optometric treatment plans were approved.

The Tribunal also granted a 25% award against the insurer for unreasonably maintaining the MIG position despite uncontroverted evidence of a concussion.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for physiotherapy, assistive devices, and a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish the reasonableness and necessity of the physiotherapy and assistive devices plans due to a lack of supporting evidence and submissions.

However, the Tribunal approved the chronic pain assessment plan, finding sufficient evidence of consistent pain and functional limitations to warrant further investigation.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payment for the assessment.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $287.88 per week.

The respondent argued the Tribunal erred in its calculation of the applicant's pre-accident income and failed to deduct post-accident Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding the original decision lacked an evidentiary basis for its pre-accident income calculation and erred by not deducting the post-accident EI payments.

The decision was varied to award an IRB of $265.24 per week for a reduced period.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

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

He failed to notify the insurer of his intention to apply for benefits until approximately one and a half years after the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's explanations, including being new to Canada and hoping his injuries would subside, did not constitute a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Consequently, the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with his application before the Tribunal.

The applicant, a Quebec resident injured in an Ontario motor vehicle accident, sought a medical benefit for assistive devices from the respondent insurer.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant was required to first seek benefits from the SAAQ under Quebec's Automobile Accident Insurance Act, as Ontario statutory accident benefits are excess insurance.

The Tribunal agreed the applicant was obliged to apply to the SAAQ and the respondent was generally entitled to deduct available collateral benefits.

However, the Tribunal found the respondent was estopped from doing so for this specific claim because it had adjusted the file for nearly two years and approved the devices in full without ever advising the applicant of her obligation to apply to the SAAQ.

The Tribunal ordered payment of the benefit with interest and granted a 50% award under section 10 of Regulation 664 due to the respondent's unreasonable delay and change in position.

The applicant sought payment for three physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant's own family physician recorded that physiotherapy was not helping, and neither the applicant's nor the respondent's medical assessors recommended ongoing physiotherapy.

The applicant also argued entitlement based on the insurer's failure to provide timely notice under section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The adjudicator agreed the insurer was non-compliant but dismissed the claim because the applicant provided no evidence that the expenses were actually incurred during the period of non-compliance.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's accident-related psychological condition warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

However, the applicant was not entitled to non-earner benefits, as her post-accident activities demonstrated she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for a chronic pain assessment (due to the insurer's non-compliance with s. 38(8) notice requirements) and a psychological assessment, but denied the remaining plans for chiropractic, psychological, neurological, and in-home assessments as not reasonable and necessary.

A claim for a special award was dismissed due to procedural unfairness, while interest was awarded on overdue benefits.