OLAT 2026

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).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries, including alleged chronic pain and psychological impairments, warranted removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans, which exceeded the $3,500 MIG limit, were not payable.

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

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

The appellant argued that his condition did not interfere with his ability to drive safely, noting his completion of treatment programs and a physician's endorsement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant continued to consume alcohol despite a severe alcohol use disorder diagnosis and a recent history of driving under the influence.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's lack of sustained abstinence meant his condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

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

The respondent partially denied a treatment plan for an in-home occupational therapy assessment, specifically denying costs for documentation, provider travel time, and the initial report.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to dispute the denial and sought an award for unreasonably withheld benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the balance of the cost for the initial report documentation, as the detailed 29-page report and Form 1 reasonably required the time claimed.

However, the Tribunal denied the costs for completing the OCF-18 and provider travel time, finding insufficient evidence to support those claims.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an award, finding the respondent had reasonable grounds for its partial approval and did not act unreasonably.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed their appeal of the cancellation of their tow driver's certificate for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred by failing to apply the primacy of the Human Rights Code and failing to determine accommodation obligations.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the Human Rights Code cannot be used to create jurisdiction where the underlying statute, the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021, explicitly provides no right of appeal.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits (ACBs), and various medical assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a temporary exacerbation of pre-existing shoulder and neck issues, entitling her to IRBs for a closed period until December 31, 2024.

However, the quantum payable was reduced to zero because the applicant received employment insurance sickness benefits that fully offset the IRB amount.

The claims for ACBs and medical benefits were dismissed, as surveillance evidence and medical assessments demonstrated the applicant could perform her pre-accident activities and did not require the claimed assistance or further assessments.

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 for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing spinal osteoarthritis and accident-related psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that the mild osteoarthritis was a pre-existing condition or that it precluded recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the psychological complaints were self-reported and unsupported by a psychological assessment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, relying on multidisciplinary insurer's examinations to conclude the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a $2,400 chiropractic assessment following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit.

The Tribunal found that the treatment plan was submitted more than 260 weeks after the accident, barring the claim under section 20(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Because no substantive benefits remained in dispute, the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to determine whether the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline as a standalone issue.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The adjudicator found the applicant failed to provide compelling, corroborating medical evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment.

The adjudicator excluded late-filed clinical notes and records and relied on the respondent's insurer's examination reports, which found symptom exaggeration and no non-minor injuries.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Quebec and elected to receive benefits under Quebec's public plan (SAAQ).

She applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for dispute resolution after the respondent denied treatment plans for an orthopaedic assessment, a chronic pain program, and hospital services.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the orthopaedic assessment and chronic pain program were reasonable and necessary, as contemporaneous medical evidence from her family doctor indicated her physical injuries had resolved.

Furthermore, the adjudicator found that the hospital services expense was reasonably available from OHIP, and the applicant had failed to take reasonable steps to seek reimbursement within the statutory time period.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to various treatment and assessment plans following a motor vehicle accident, as well as an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found the applicant entitled to psychological services, a neurological assessment, a biopsychosocial assessment, an ENT assessment, and a sleep quality assessment, largely due to the insurer's failure to provide compliant medical reasons for denial under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

However, the Tribunal denied the claims for chiropractic services, finding them not reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence and the insurer's orthopaedic assessment.

The request for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed, as the insurer's conduct did not rise to the level of unreasonable behaviour.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits and funding for dog walking services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish entitlement to attendant care benefits, as the medical evidence, including a section 44 occupational therapy assessment, indicated she was independent in her self-care and had returned to work.

The Tribunal also denied the treatment plan for dog walking services, finding it was not essential for her rehabilitation and did not meet the requirements of section 16(3)(l) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

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

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 for resolution, seeking removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate functional impairment from chronic pain or a diagnosed psychological condition.

Consequently, the applicant was held to the MIG limit, and the claims for additional treatment plans were dismissed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to hear his appeal of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to extend an ignition interlock device condition on his driver's licence.

The appellant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the appellant failed to establish any breach of procedural fairness by the Tribunal or any error in its conclusion that the Registrar's decision fell under section 57 of the Highway Traffic Act and was therefore not appealable.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered a psychological impairment, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for psychological and psychiatric assessments, as well as a physiotherapy plan, but denied two chiropractic plans.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments, but the claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's reliance on its medical assessors did not constitute unreasonable behaviour.

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

The respondent initially placed the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline and denied treatment plans based on section 44 assessments.

After receiving further medical documentation, the respondent voluntarily removed the applicant from the guideline and approved the disputed treatment plans.

The applicant sought a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664, arguing the 90-day delay in adjusting the file was unreasonable.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for an award, finding the insurer's reliance on its assessors and subsequent good-faith adjustment of the file upon receiving new evidence did not constitute excessive or imprudent delay.

The applicant was awarded interest on the overdue benefits.

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

The respondent denied the benefits 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, a pre-existing rotoscoliosis condition, concussion symptoms, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to establish any of these conditions warranted removal from the MIG.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not assessed, and the application was dismissed.

The appellant casino appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty (OMP) of $12,500 imposed by the Registrar for permitting a 17-year-old minor to enter and gamble on the gaming site on four separate occasions.

The minor used a valid driver's license belonging to a 19-year-old friend.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's security staff failed to follow internal identification verification policies and ought to have known the minor was not the individual pictured on the identification.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's due diligence defence, holding it inapplicable in this administrative regulatory context, and confirmed the OMP.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar alleged the appellant acted as an unregistered dealer through his numbered company and made a false statement on his registration application regarding pending charges.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and that he had made a false statement.

However, the Tribunal substituted its opinion for the Registrar's, finding that the public interest could be adequately protected by granting the registration subject to conditions, including a prohibition on being the final signatory on vehicle transactions for one year.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing back condition and accident-related chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant established a pre-existing condition but failed to provide compelling medical evidence that it precluded his recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that his chronic pain was caused by the accident, noting inconsistencies in the clinical records and a lack of clear medical attribution.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, the disputed treatment plans were not assessed, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

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

She also claimed entitlement to a non-earner benefit and a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor sprains and strains, and she failed to prove that pre-existing conditions precluded her recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as required for the non-earner benefit.

All claims were dismissed.