OLAT 2026

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant engaged in academic misconduct by using a third-party exam-taker and screen mirroring technology during five online exams.

The Tribunal found that the circumstantial evidence, including unusually short completion times, high marks, and the use of an IP address associated with a known cheating ring, established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant engaged in academic misconduct.

Consequently, the appellant failed to meet the educational requirements for registration, and the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for an endocrinology CAT assessment and various other CAT assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the proposed assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's diabetes and pancreatitis pre-dated the accident and lacked a causal connection to it.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to justify the need for multiple psychiatric and occupational therapy assessments beyond the statutory caps.

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

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for their home under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants argued that their extensive renovation of a historic home, which retained the original foundation and exterior masonry walls, constituted a new home.

The Tribunal found that the contractor did not meet the definition of a 'vendor' or 'builder' because they did not supply all the materials or perform all the work necessary to construct the completed home, given the substantial retained elements.

The appeal was dismissed, and the home was deemed ineligible for warranty coverage.

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) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG limits.

The appellant corporation appealed the impoundment of its motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment.

At the hearing, the parties discussed alternative options to resolve the issue, as the vehicle was being rented out at the time.

The appellant subsequently withdrew the application, and the Tribunal closed the file.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing he should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment, noting his expert's report lacked corroborating medical records and did not clearly align with the AMA Guides criteria.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's psychological claims, preferring the respondent's expert who found a lack of objective information supporting a psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded because the appellant was driving without a required ignition interlock device.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as he had access to food delivery, taxis, and occasional rides to work.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to extend his ignition interlock condition by six months.

The Minister brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the extension was not a decision under s. 32(5)(b)(i) or s. 47 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal found the Minister failed to provide sufficient submissions explaining why the extension did not constitute a decision under s. 32(5)(b)(i).

As the hearing on the merits was imminent, the Tribunal adjourned the motion to be decided by the adjudicator assigned to the main hearing.

The applicant, a special needs student, was assaulted by another student while riding a school bus and subsequently suffered a stroke.

She applied for statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The assault was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, and the use or operation of the school bus was not the direct cause of the applicant's injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who sustained catastrophic impairments in a motor vehicle accident, sought payment for various treatment plans, including occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and medical cannabis.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the medical cannabis was reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's indigenous cultural preference for natural remedies and supporting medical evidence.

The Tribunal also awarded travel expenses for service providers, recognizing the remote nature of the applicant's underserviced reservation.

However, the Tribunal denied several claims for full OCF-18 form completion fees, finding one hour to be reasonable, and denied further physiotherapy and social work counselling due to a lack of compelling evidence from the applicant.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian and sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits (IRBs), and various medical benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, as his physical and psychological impairments did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under criteria 6 and 7, nor did he suffer marked impairments in three domains under criterion 8.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, noting the applicant had returned to work for nearly three years post-accident and failed to demonstrate a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

Claims for a functional abilities evaluation and worksite assessment were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was awarded minor amounts for treatment plan form fees and interest on those amounts, but the claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's denials were not unreasonable.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological condition (depression and vehicular anxiety), which removed him from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for the chiropractic treatment plans, finding them not reasonable and necessary as the applicant had reached maximum therapeutic benefit and lacked corroborating objective medical evidence for physical impairments.

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) under Criteria 7 and 8.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant did not meet her burden of proof.

Under Criterion 7, the applicant's own assessors provided conflicting mental and behavioural impairment ratings (40% vs. 34% WPI), and even combining the lower rating with her physical impairment rating did not meet the 55% threshold.

Under Criterion 8, the Tribunal rejected findings of 'at times' Marked impairment as ambiguous and noted unexplained inconsistencies between the applicant's assessors regarding her level of impairment over time.

The applicant's claims for various treatment plans, an award, and interest were also dismissed as she failed to provide submissions or evidence supporting the plans.

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

The respondent denied various 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 meet the burden of proving his injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's argument that the respondent's denial letters were non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, finding that citing the MIG constitutes a valid medical reason for denial.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2022 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the majority of the claims, finding the applicant's self-reports of pre-accident functioning were inaccurate, as he was receiving long-term disability and Canada Pension Plan disability benefits prior to the accident.

Surveillance evidence and testimony contradicted the applicant's claims of severe social and functional isolation.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, was not entitled to an IRB, and was only entitled to a minor portion of one treatment plan due to a late denial by the insurer.

The applicant sought payment for outstanding balances on two chiropractic treatment plans and an MRI following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the adjusted hourly rate for the chiropractic services was correct under the Professional Services Guideline and the cost of gloves was not payable.

The Tribunal also found the MRI was not reasonable and necessary as it was reasonably available through OHIP.

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after falling from a Boomer Beast mobility scooter.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' because the scooter was not an automobile.

The Tribunal applied the Adams and Grummett tests, finding the Boomer Beast is an automobile in ordinary parlance as it is designed for use on public roads.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for a $2,486 attendant care assessment, finding insufficient evidence that the assessment was necessary to prepare an attendant care needs form.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she was barred from claiming a non-earner benefit (NEB) for failing to attend scheduled insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding with the NEB claim due to her unexcused failure to attend the examinations, though she was awarded one day of NEBs because the respondent's denial notice was one day late.

The Tribunal also concluded the applicant failed to prove her physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG, as her psychological complaints were primarily related to life stressors rather than the accident.

Consequently, the claims for disputed treatment plans were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by preventing his student-at-law representative from fully participating and by temporarily removing the applicant from the virtual hearing room during an objection.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding that the Law Society of Ontario By-Laws permit a student-at-law to provide legal services under supervision, even in catastrophic impairment claims.

The Vice-Chair also found that removing the applicant during the cross-examination of a key expert witness was a material breach of procedural fairness.

The reconsideration was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and a rehearing before a new adjudicator was ordered.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for Botox injections, an occupational therapy in-home assessment, and a physiatry assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the Botox injections were reasonable and necessary, as there was insufficient medical evidence supporting the recommendation.

However, the Tribunal found the occupational therapy and physiatry assessments were reasonable and necessary to evaluate the applicant's ongoing impairments and determine appropriate treatment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the assessments with interest, but declined to order an award for unreasonable delay.