OLAT 2026

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and various medical assessments and treatment plans.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his self-employment, specifically overhead lifting and setting up his business, and awarded IRB from June 16, 2022 to June 30, 2023.

The Tribunal also approved several psychological, psychiatric, and chronic pain assessments, as well as chiropractic treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal denied a nutritional assessment and certain psychological and chiropractic treatment plans where the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof or had not utilized previously approved treatments.

Interest was awarded on overdue benefits.

The applicant sought a special award and interest after withdrawing substantive claims for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that because the substantive claims for attendant care benefits were withdrawn and the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred, there was no basis to conclude the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payment.

The application for an award and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for psychological and chronic pain assessments.

The respondent denied the benefits 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 warranted removal from the MIG, noting that his reported sleep disturbances and headaches were attributable to a pre-existing sleep apnea diagnosis rather than the accident.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied two treatment plans for chiropractic 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 determined that the respondent's denial notice for the first treatment plan was non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, rendering those expenses payable under s. 38(11).

The denial notice for the second treatment plan was compliant, and thus it was not payable.

The applicant's claim for an award was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied treatment plans for physiotherapy, a chronic pain assessment, and a neurological assessment.

The respondent also raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding with the chronic pain assessment claim due to non-attendance at an insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found the insurer's request for the examination was not reasonably necessary due to its timing, over a year after the denial.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the insurer's denial notices were deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, making the physiotherapy and chronic pain assessments payable.

The Tribunal also found the neurological assessment was reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

All disputed benefits were awarded with interest.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a 'G' licence due to a reported medical condition.

The Minister argued that the appellant's diagnosis of epilepsy and recent seizures significantly interfered with his ability to safely drive a commercial vehicle, relying on the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant did suffer from epilepsy, he had been seizure-free for over a year, was stable on medication, and had the support of his treating neurologist to return to commercial driving.

The Tribunal concluded that the Minister failed to establish that the condition was likely to significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive safely, and set aside the decision to downgrade the licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

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

The Tribunal found that the son took the vehicle without the appellant's consent while she was asleep, and intended to temporarily deprive her of it.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.

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 a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain, noting a lack of specialist referrals, imaging, or functional impairment.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of a psychological condition caused by the accident, relying on s. 44 assessments that concluded the applicant did not meet DSM criteria for any psychological diagnosis.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, he remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, rendering the disputed treatment plans moot.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physical therapy services following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan and brought a preliminary motion to exclude late-filed medical evidence and an affidavit from the applicant, while also seeking costs.

The Tribunal admitted the medical evidence, finding no prejudice to the respondent, and partially admitted the affidavit.

On the substantive issue, the Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and found the applicant suffered from accident-related chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed physical therapy plan was reasonable and necessary, ordering the respondent to pay $4,620.73 plus interest.

The respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, chiropractic, and psychological treatment following a 2021 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal relied on insurer examination reports indicating the applicant's soft-tissue and psychological injuries had resolved, and noted significant gaps in the applicant's medical complaints.

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

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 (mental and behavioural impairments).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning (Activities of Daily Living, Social Functioning, and Adaptation) and was therefore catastrophically impaired.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits of $3,233.31 per month but dismissed the applicant's claims for various treatment plans, assessments, and a special award, finding insufficient evidence to support those claims.

The applicant sought payment for various treatment plans and expenses for chiropractic, psychological, and acupuncture services following a motor vehicle accident, as well as an award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence or sufficient submissions to meet her burden of proving the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

As no benefits were payable, claims for interest and a punitive award were also dismissed.

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

The insurer denied a $1,997.00 physiotherapy treatment plan, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove chronic pain with functional impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was not entitled to the treatment plan or interest.

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 respondent's denial of a $2,803.60 chiropractic treatment plan was non-compliant with s. 38(8) of the Schedule because it applied the MIG after the applicant had already been removed from it due to a psychological condition.

Consequently, the applicant was entitled to payment under s. 38(11).

The Tribunal also awarded a 25% penalty under s. 10 of Reg. 664 for the respondent's unreasonable delay of nearly two years in approving other treatment plans after removing the applicant from the MIG.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Minister of Transportation to downgrade his Class A commercial driver's licence to a Class G(Z) licence under section 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal issued a notice of intention to dismiss the appeal without a hearing on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.

After considering the appellant's written submissions, the Tribunal confirmed that no regulatory provision creates a right to appeal a licence downgrade made under that specific subsection.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, an intercity bus driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's return to part-time work as a mail courier demonstrated she did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's cognitive decline, photophobia, and reduced stamina rendered her unable to perform the highly responsible duties of an intercity bus driver.

Relying on the applicant's recent neurological and neuropsychological assessments, the Tribunal concluded her condition had deteriorated over time and she met the post-104 test as of September 27, 2023.

The applicant was awarded IRBs from that date onward, plus interest.

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

The adjudicator found the applicant was barred from proceeding with her claim for an income replacement benefit because she failed to dispute the denial within the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule.

Regarding medical and rehabilitation benefits, the adjudicator approved a treatment plan for Botox injections and a cold cap to treat post-traumatic headaches, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The remaining claims for various treatment plans, including occupational therapy, social work services, and delivery fees, were dismissed due to insufficient evidence, failure to prove the expenses were not administrative fees, or failure to comply with a section 33 request for information.

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 claimed chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence, including clinical notes and an insurer's examination, did not support the presence of an accident-related chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment.

As the policy limits within the MIG were exhausted, the claims for physiotherapy and a chronic pain assessment were dismissed, along with claims for interest and an award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and several treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing on the treatment plans because she failed to dispute the denials within the two-year limitation period and failed to attend a section 44 insurer's examination without a reasonable explanation.

However, the Tribunal found the respondent improperly stopped the applicant's IRB payments without providing proper notice under section 37(4) of the Schedule.

The applicant was awarded IRB payments for a brief period in January 2023, plus interest, but her claim for a section 10 award was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent insurer on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal applied the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain and found the applicant did not meet the required threshold, noting her continued full-time work and lack of excessive dependence on others.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment, as the treatment plans alone did not satisfy the burden of proof.

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