OLAT 2026

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 pre-existing right knee and psychological conditions, as well as accident-related psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG or that she suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, noting a lack of corroborating clinical notes from her family doctor.

The application was dismissed.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and did not warrant removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant's claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed as she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

However, the adjudicator found that the respondent's denial notices for two treatment plans were non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, rendering the respondent liable to pay the incurred expenses under s. 38(11).

Claims for accounting reports and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and a non-earner benefit.

The applicant argued that her pre-existing chronic pain, anxiety, and depression, as well as post-accident chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions precluded maximal recovery within the MIG, and failed to prove she suffered from accident-related chronic pain.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as her post-accident functional limitations were consistent with her pre-accident medical history.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for psychological services, a neurological assessment, and physiotherapy.

The Tribunal found the applicant partially entitled to the psychological services treatment plan for counselling sessions, but denied the in-car driving reintegration therapy, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment that the applicant did not suffer from a severe driving phobia.

The claims for a neurological assessment and physiotherapy were dismissed due to a lack of supporting medical evidence.

The applicant's request for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was denied, but interest was awarded on the overdue psychological counselling benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment (CAT) based on mental and behavioural disorders, and entitlement to a post-104-week income replacement benefit (IRB).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant sustained psychological impairments from the accident, she did not meet the Criterion 8 threshold for CAT, as she demonstrated only moderate impairments across the four spheres of functioning.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, preferring the respondent's multi-disciplinary assessment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an employee with a suspended licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant merely assumed the driver's licence was valid without taking reasonable steps to verify it.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because he had access to an alternative vehicle.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, a pre-existing condition from a prior accident, and a psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the medical records attributed the applicant's psychological symptoms to non-accident-related stressors, such as work pressures and personal grief.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissing the claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Schedule following a 2022 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing her impairments stemmed from pre-existing conditions, including a prior accident and childhood trauma.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and found that the 2022 accident exacerbated her pre-existing psychological issues, resulting in marked impairments in activities of daily living, social functioning, and adaptation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts and found she met the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

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 for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove that his pre-existing low back pain prevented maximum recovery within the MIG, or that he suffered from accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the burden of proving chronic pain with functional impairment under the AMA Guides criteria, nor did she establish a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plan for physiotherapy was not payable.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest were also dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims for several items in their new home, including countertops, doors, a window, and exterior stucco.

The appellants argued that the builder made an unauthorized substitution by installing quartz countertops instead of granite, and alleged various other construction defects.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants failed to meet their evidentiary burden to prove any breach of warranty.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants received the exact countertop colour they selected, and provided no documentary evidence to support their other claims of defects.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and notified her insurer.

When asked if she was injured, she initially said no, and the insurer did not provide her with an accident benefits application package.

Nine months later, she submitted an application for benefits.

The insurer argued she was barred from proceeding due to the delay.

The Tribunal found that the insurer failed to discharge its obligation under section 32(2) of the Schedule to provide the application forms, which meant the 30-day timeline was never triggered.

Alternatively, the Tribunal found the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, as she mistakenly assumed an additional application was unnecessary because the insurer did not provide the package.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with her claim.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which occurred after a driver was caught operating it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of the impoundment.

The Tribunal found that the driver, who was staying at the appellant's house, took the vehicle without her permission while the keys were left in the ignition by a friend.

Applying the test from Marshall, the Tribunal concluded the vehicle was taken without consent with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner of its use.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as he owned four other licensed vehicles that he was already using for his business and personal needs.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant allowed an unregistered salesperson to work at his car lot, demonstrating past conduct inconsistent with carrying on business with honesty, integrity, and in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal found that the unregistered individual held himself out as a salesperson, used the appellant's receipt book, and operated vehicles with the appellant's dealer plates.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant knew or ought to have known of these activities, which resulted in consumer harm.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal and revoke the appellant's registration.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove chronic pain with functional impairment, noting he did not meet the AMA Guides criteria.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's social worker letter, finding no psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

The applicant was held to remain within the MIG and was denied the disputed treatment plans and interest.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that barred his claim for statutory accident benefits under s. 61(1) of the Schedule due to his potential entitlement to benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The applicant argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to apply s. 61(1) until the WSIB or WSIAT made a final determination on his WSIA entitlement.

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration, finding that the Tribunal must consider whether the applicant is actually entitled to WSIA benefits before applying the s. 61(1) bar, in keeping with the consumer protection mandate of the Schedule.

The original decision was cancelled and a rehearing before a new adjudicator was ordered.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act for alleged defects in their new condominium unit.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the window screens were common elements that could only be appealed by the condominium corporation, the stacked washer and dryer provided by the builder complied with the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and the allegedly missing countertop was not included in the original layout specifications.

The appellants were not entitled to compensation from the guarantee fund.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son was caught driving it without an ignition interlock device, contrary to a condition on his driver's licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove that no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, as she had access to vehicles owned by her husband and mother.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for statutory accident benefits but died before the written hearing.

Counsel attempted to continue the application without an appointed estate trustee.

The Tribunal found that it lacks jurisdiction to appoint an estate trustee and that counsel had not established legal authority to continue the claim on behalf of the deceased.

The application was dismissed to prevent an abuse of process pursuant to section 23 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.