OLAT 2026

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that neither treatment plan was substantively reasonable and necessary, as contemporaneous medical records did not corroborate the applicant's reports of accident-related physical injuries.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the insurer's denial notice for the physiotherapy treatment plan failed to comply with the specificity requirements of s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Consequently, the physiotherapy treatment plan was deemed payable under s. 38(11).

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, a physiatry assessment, and a disability certificate following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the treatment plans for Botox injections, chiropractic services, massage therapy, psychological services, the physiatry assessment, and the disability certificate were reasonable and necessary.

However, the tribunal denied the treatment plan for a chronic pain program, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the costs were reasonable against the identified goals.

The tribunal awarded interest on the payable plans but declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The applicant was walking with his fiancée when a vehicle drove onto the curb towards them.

The applicant jumped out of the way to avoid being struck, but his fiancée was hit and killed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant was merely a witness and not 'involved in' the accident.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant was in immediate danger and had to take evasive action to avoid physical injury, he was engaged as a participant and was therefore 'involved in' the accident.

The applicant was deemed an 'insured person' eligible for benefits.

The appellant motor vehicle dealer appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration issued by the Registrar.

The Registrar alleged the appellant breached registration conditions by failing to disclose material facts on Bills of Sale, offering unsupported warranties, and failing to provide a required Letter of Credit.

Furthermore, the Registrar alleged the appellant continued to trade in motor vehicles after its registration expired.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Registrar met its onus, noting compelling evidence that the appellant's sole director continued to sell vehicles while unregistered despite warnings.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to refuse registration, finding that the appellant's conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The Registrar received reports from treating physicians indicating the appellant suffered from severe alcohol use disorder.

The Tribunal applied the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, which require a longer period of abstinence than the appellant's three months.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's alcohol use disorder was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence after receiving a medical report indicating he had suffered a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder and that this condition 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 yet completed his treatment program or demonstrated a sufficient period of abstinence.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological evidence was unpersuasive as it contradicted the clinical notes of his family doctor, and that his physical injuries were soft tissue in nature, resolving within expected timeframes.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and remained within the MIG.

All claims for benefits, an award, and interest were 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 argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment as a result of the accident.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit, and the claims for treatment plans, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident where windshield wiper fluid caused chemical burns to her eyes.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for her delay in producing medical records, she failed to submit a disability certificate (OCF-3) prior to the claimed IRB period.

Substantively, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment, as she did not provide sufficient evidence detailing those tasks or how her injuries prevented her from completing them.

The application for IRBs, interest, and an award was 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 argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing chronic pain and psychological conditions from a prior accident, as well as chronic pain resulting from the subject accident.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to prove the pre-existing conditions prevented maximal medical recovery within the MIG, or that the subject accident caused a chronic pain condition with functional impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority brought a motion to determine the procedure for an appeal of an Administrative Penalty Order (APO) issued to the appellant under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The Registrar argued the appeal should proceed on the record rather than as a de novo hearing.

The Tribunal conducted a statutory interpretation of the Act and concluded that the legislative scheme, which includes a robust first-instance process by the assessor, intends for the Tribunal to conduct an appeal on the record.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeal proceed as an appeal on the record.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, various treatment plans, and attendant care benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof for the non-earner benefits, as she did not provide sufficient evidence comparing her pre- and post-accident activities.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the disputed treatment plans and attendant care benefits due to a lack of supporting evidence and submissions.

The respondent conceded entitlement to one psychotherapy treatment plan.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for the cost of renting an accessible unit following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant owned a main residence in Thunder Bay and a vacation property in Toronto.

Due to her injuries, she rented an accessible unit in Toronto and rented out both her pre-accident properties.

The respondent argued that the rental income from both properties should be deducted from the housing benefit, resulting in no benefit payable.

The Tribunal found that only the rental income from the pre-accident main residence should be deducted, as the Schedule does not contemplate deducting income from a vacation property.

The applicant was awarded the housing benefit less the main residence rental income, plus interest.

Claims for painting expenses and an award were dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life under the Heath test, as there was insufficient evidence to compare her pre- and post-accident functional limitations.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's partial labral tear constituted a minor injury under the Schedule, keeping her within the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline limit.

Consequently, the claims for non-earner benefits and treatment plans exceeding the limit were dismissed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after police found it being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended and subject to a mandatory ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as rides from friends and family, and therefore failed to meet the test for exceptional hardship.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied two treatment plans for chiropractic and massage therapy services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal held that the respondent's denial notices for both treatment plans were defective and failed to comply with s. 38(8) of the Schedule because they were confusing and not clear and unequivocal.

Consequently, pursuant to s. 38(11), the treatment plans are payable once incurred and properly invoiced.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support claims of chronic pain or psychological injury warranting removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he maintained or increased his pre-accident activities, including working as an Uber driver.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the limits were exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, as he did not provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition or a psychological impairment.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide compliant notices under s. 38(8) of the Schedule for several of the denied treatment plans.

As a result, the respondent was ordered to pay for the treatment plans incurred after the 11th business day following their submission, up until compliant notices were issued, along with applicable interest.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, physical injuries including a concussion, and psychological impairments.

The adjudicator found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claims, noting that complaints of concussion and psychological symptoms arose more than a year after the accident and following a separate assault.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found to remain subject to the MIG limit.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing degenerative disc disease and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, applying the AMA Guides, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain with functional impairment, noting he continued to work and exercise.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plan was not considered as the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit.