OLAT 2026

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the Heath test to determine if the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

While the Tribunal accepted that the applicant's injuries prevented him from continuing his pre-accident employment and impacted his housekeeping duties, it found that his personal care tasks were not sufficiently affected.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to meet the high threshold for non-earner benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and gave limited weight to the applicant's psychological assessment due to reliability issues and lack of contemporaneous medical records.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove removal from the MIG or a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a chef.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to notify the respondent within seven days or submit his application (OCF-1) within 30 days.

The applicant argued the delay was due to a good faith error by his counsel, who initially submitted the claim to a different insurer.

The Tribunal found the explanation was not credible, noting the applicant continued to submit claims to both insurers even after the alleged error was discovered.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delays and was therefore barred under section 55(1) of the Schedule from proceeding with his application.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension followed a medical report indicating the appellant suffered seizures due to alcohol withdrawal and a traumatic brain injury.

The Tribunal applied the CCMTA Standards, noting the appellant had not completed an alcohol treatment program or maintained the required period of abstinence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's medical condition of seizure due to alcohol withdrawal was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

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

The respondent 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, a concussion, and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-reporting and the applicant's expert assessments inconsistent with the clinical notes of treating practitioners and the respondent's assessments.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied as the applicant's conduct was not frivolous or vexatious.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied payment for an orthopaedic assessment treatment plan.

The applicant argued that the insurer's denial was invalid under s. 38(8) of the Schedule because it relied on an insurer's examination report obtained through a non-compliant notice under s. 44(5).

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact in the original decision.

The Tribunal held that the compliance of a denial notice under s. 38(8) is not dependent on compliance with s. 44(5), as the purpose of s. 38(8) is simply to allow the insured person to understand the insurer's reasons for denial.

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

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

The applicant argued entitlement based solely on the insurer's alleged failure to provide compliant denial notices under section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the insurer's denial letters were compliant, as they identified the plans, provided medical reasons, and confirmed the MIG applied.

As the applicant provided no medical evidence to demonstrate her injuries fell outside the MIG, the Tribunal concluded she sustained a minor injury and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought payment for the balance of three treatment plans for psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had partially approved the plans at an hourly rate of $99.75 for a psychotherapist, while the applicant claimed entitlement to the psychologist rate of $149.61 per hour.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treating qualifying registered psychotherapist provided equivalent treatment to a psychologist or required the higher rate.

The application for the balance of the treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident in August 2022, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit and two physiotherapy treatment plans.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments stemmed from a prior 2019 accident and that he did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence highly inconsistent regarding his pre- and post-accident functioning and employment status.

Relying on the consistent evidence of the respondent's assessors and the applicant's own treating records, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove his entitlement to the non-earner benefit or the treatment plans.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs due to late service of documents was also denied.

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

The vehicle was impounded because the appellant was driving without an ignition interlock device, contrary to a condition on his driver's licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant admitted to driving the vehicle without the required device.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as he had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as walking, getting rides from friends, and taking taxicabs.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative transportation was available, as she had successfully utilized public transit, taxis, walking, and rides from family members to meet her household's needs.

The appellant appealed an Immediate Suspension Order (ISO) of its liquor licence issued by the Registrar under the Liquor Licence Control Act, 2019.

The ISO was issued following an RCMP investigation that revealed drug trafficking activities occurring within the appellant's strip club.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's sole owner either knew or ought to have known about the drug-related activities and failed to exercise sufficient control over the premises.

The Tribunal upheld the ISO, concluding that the suspension of the liquor licence was necessary in the public interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being attacked by a dog that leaped from a parked vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule and that the applicant failed to provide timely notice.

The Tribunal found that the incident did not meet the purpose or causation tests for an accident, as the dog attack was an intervening act and the dominant feature of the injuries.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her seven-month delay in notifying the insurer.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a neurological assessment, interest, and an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the assessment was reasonable and necessary, noting that diagnostic imaging showed pre-existing degenerative changes and the applicant had not reported radicular symptoms to his treating practitioners.

Although an independent medical examiner suggested the assessment for headaches, the adjudicator noted headaches were not listed as an accident-related injury.

The claims for the assessment, interest, and an award were dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant was diagnosed with chronic pain, she failed to demonstrate the requisite functional impairment, as she continued to work full-time and remained independent in her activities of daily living.

The Tribunal also found insufficient medical evidence to support an accident-related psychological injury.

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

The respondent's request for costs was also denied due to a lack of supporting particulars.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim for the non-earner benefit, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, largely due to unreliable self-reporting and significant pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims for a neurological assessment and psychological services as not reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a chronic pain assessment because the respondent's denial notices were confusing and failed to comply with section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The dispute centered on two conflicting disability certificates (OCF-3s) submitted by the same physiotherapist.

The first OCF-3 endorsed a complete inability to carry on a normal life but not a substantial inability to perform essential employment tasks.

After the insurer contacted the clinic for clarification, an amended OCF-3 was submitted stating the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant argued the insurer improperly contacted the provider and that the denial notice was non-compliant.

The Tribunal found the insurer's inquiry was reasonably required under s. 46.2(1) of the Schedule to determine eligibility.

The applicant failed to provide medical evidence establishing a complete inability to carry on a normal life or a copy of the denial notice to prove non-compliance.

The application for the non-earner benefit, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a pre-existing major depressive disorder and accident-related psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence that the pre-existing condition precluded recovery within the MIG, noting the applicant's self-reports to the assessor were inconsistent with pre-accident clinical records.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissing the claims for chiropractic services, a psychological assessment, and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits and various treatment plans.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence by the deadline and did not file a Notice of Withdrawal.

The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Procedures Act and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving entitlement to the claimed benefits.

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

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient contemporaneous medical evidence to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, the MIG limits applied, and no interest was owed.