OLAT 2026

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

The insurer denied various treatment plans, 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's evidence, including a report from an orthopaedic surgeon, lacked objective medical support and relied heavily on self-reporting.

Conversely, the Tribunal preferred the insurer's medical examinations, which found normal physical results and no diagnosable psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a minor injury subject to the MIG limit and dismissed the claims for the disputed treatment plans and interest.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which occurred when another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant, who lives alone in a rural area with no alternative transportation, required the vehicle to attend critical medical appointments and obtain basic necessities.

The Tribunal concluded that the lack of a vehicle posed a threat to her health and safety, satisfying the exceptional hardship criteria under O. Reg. 631/98.

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

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services 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 and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor sprains and strains, and that the medical evidence did not support a diagnosis of chronic pain.

Furthermore, relying on the respondent's psychological assessment which indicated non-credible reporting of symptoms, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer from a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letter complied with the requirements of s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant sought removal from the MIG based on psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence linking his psychological complaints or ongoing back pain to the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were minor and confined him to the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans, interest, an award for unreasonable delay, and costs were all denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, funding for a psychological assessment, and physiotherapy services.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in her self-reporting and a failure to provide evidence of her pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal assigned little weight to the applicant's expert reports due to methodological flaws and reliance on incomplete medical records.

The claims for the remaining balances of the psychological assessment and physiotherapy services were dismissed as they exceeded the maximum amounts permitted under the Schedule and Guidelines.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that she had no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she had not made reasonable inquiries into other transportation options such as taxis, Uber, or assistance from family members.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant sought a post-104-week income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffers a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, primarily due to chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's expert assessors over the respondent's assessors, noting that the alternate employment roles proposed by the respondent were not comparable in status or wages.

The applicant was awarded the IRB and interest on overdue payments, but her claim for a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not found to be unreasonable or vexatious.

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

The Registrar relied on medical reports indicating the appellant suffered from cognitive impairment and dementia.

The appellant denied having cognitive impairment but admitted she did not pass a recent functional driving assessment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from cognitive impairment that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, and confirmed the licence suspension.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits, reimbursement for clothing and prescription expenses, an award, and costs following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to determine the non-earner benefit claim because the applicant had never submitted a disability certificate (OCF-3) and the insurer had never issued a denial.

The claims for clothing and prescription expenses were dismissed due to a lack of evidence demonstrating that the items were damaged in the accident or that the prescriptions were reasonable and necessary.

The requests for an award and costs were also dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from a psychological impairment and chronic pain, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for an attendant care assessment, psychological services, physiotherapy, and a lumbar back brace, finding them reasonable and necessary.

A psychological assessment was denied as redundant.

The Tribunal also awarded interest on overdue benefits but dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award, finding the respondent relied on expert opinions and did not unreasonably withhold payments.

The applicant, a pedestrian, was struck by a vehicle insured by the respondent.

The respondent was notified of the accident by its insured the following day but failed to contact the applicant or provide him with an accident benefits package.

The applicant submitted his application for benefits nearly two years later.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant failed to provide notice within seven days as required by section 32(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's receipt of information from its insured satisfied the notice requirement and triggered its positive obligation under section 32(2) to assist the applicant.

The Tribunal held the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay and was not barred from proceeding with his claim.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his onus to demonstrate injuries warranting removal from the MIG, noting a lack of supporting medical evidence from his family physician or treatment plans.

Relying in part on an insurer's examination report, the Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor.

As the applicant was held to the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were dismissed without further analysis.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, which included a chronic pain assessment, attendant care assessment, chiropractic treatment, massage therapy, and assistive devices.

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

The adjudicator noted a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence supporting ongoing functional impairment and relied on insurer's examination reports which concluded the applicant did not suffer from structural injuries or significant psychological impairment.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The respondent denied certain treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and requested the applicant attend insurer's examinations (IEs) under section 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled IEs and did not provide a reasonable explanation for his non-attendance.

On a preliminary issue, the Tribunal found that the notices of examination were valid and that the applicant was statute-barred under section 55(1)2 from proceeding with the issue of whether his injuries were predominantly minor and one treatment plan dependent on the MIG.

However, because the respondent failed to provide evidence linking three other treatment plans to the MIG, the applicant was permitted to proceed to a hearing on those remaining issues.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and an orthopaedic assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits, initially relying on the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), though the MIG was later conceded.

The Tribunal found the applicant entitled to the first physiotherapy treatment plan based on supportive clinical notes from his family physician.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for subsequent physiotherapy plans and the orthopaedic assessment due to a lack of medical evidence demonstrating they were reasonable and necessary.

The claim for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed as the insurer's conduct did not rise to the level of being unreasonable, given the applicant's failure to provide requested medical documentation.

The applicant sought payment for the unapproved balances of two treatment plans for social work services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had approved the plans but reduced the provider's hourly rate from $139.00 to $100.00.

The Tribunal found that the provider, a registered social worker, was qualified to provide psychotherapy and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, and that her services were comparable to those of a psychologist.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the unapproved balances of $1,014.00 and $1,348.00, plus interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an OCF-18 for occupational therapy (involving airfare for family) and attendant care benefits (ACB).

The Tribunal found the respondent's denial notice for the OCF-18 was defective under s. 38(8) of the Schedule as it failed to provide sufficient medical reasons, ordering the respondent to pay the OCF-18 with interest.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for increased ACB, finding the respondent properly relied on a prior Insurer's Examination and the applicant failed to prove the increased ACB was reasonable and necessary.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding a warranted air leak defect in her new home.

Tarion had issued a supplementary decision offering $15,000 to repair the defect, which the appellant rejected, seeking $60,000 based on contractor estimates and secondary costs.

The Tribunal found that secondary damages are excluded under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and that the appellant's estimates lacked probative value as they did not specify the required scope of work.

Relying on the respondent's witness who directly observed the defect area, the Tribunal concluded that $15,000 was more than sufficient to address the air leak.

The appeal for additional funds was dismissed, and Tarion was ordered to pay the $15,000 previously offered.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claim for income replacement benefits.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by holding a written hearing, made errors of fact and law regarding her non-compliance with document production requests, and failed to consider medical evidence regarding her post-104 week IRB entitlement.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The applicant did not show a good reason for requiring a videoconference hearing, attempted to re-litigate findings of fact, and failed to explain why the medical evidence could not have been provided at the original hearing.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the appellant and her partner lived in a rural area with no public transit, and the lack of a vehicle threatened the partner's employment and the health and safety of their newborn child.

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