OLAT 2026

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to psychological and physical injuries, as well as attendant care benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident was a necessary cause of her psychological impairments, noting significant pre-existing conditions and surveillance evidence contradicting her reported limitations.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the whole person impairment threshold for physical and psychological impairments combined.

Claims for attendant care benefits were denied as the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and failed to prove the expenses were incurred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing for removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) on the basis of chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence of a functional impairment accompanying the chronic pain.

Relying on the respondent's section 44 multidisciplinary assessments, which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery, the Tribunal held the applicant to the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were not assessed for reasonableness and necessity, and claims for interest and a section 10 award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a proposed psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence to establish that his injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's procedural argument that the respondent's denial letter violated section 38(8) of the Schedule, finding the letter provided a sufficient medical reason by referencing the MIG.

The application was 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 adjudicator found the applicant suffered from psychological conditions, including PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder, which removed her from the MIG.

The adjudicator approved a psychological services treatment plan and partially approved a physical therapy treatment plan, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Claims for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 and costs were dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision denying her income replacement benefits beyond April 23, 2024.

She argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider contextual factors in the post-104 week test, such as the part-time nature of the reasonably suited employment, and misapprehended expert neurological evidence regarding her migraines.

The Tribunal found that while it erred in law by not applying the holistic analysis mandated by recent appellate jurisprudence, this error would not have changed the outcome given the medical evidence of her significant improvement.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial AB driver's licence to a G class licence due to his cardiovascular disease and the implantation of an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's medical condition, specifically the ICD and documented ventricular tachycardia, posed a risk of sudden incapacitation that exceeded the acceptable threshold for commercial drivers under the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards.

The Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision to downgrade the licence, concluding that the condition was likely to significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she took no steps to verify her son's licence status before permitting him to drive.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to rental vehicles to meet her daily needs and medical appointments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for a hospital bed rental, a catastrophic impairment assessment, physiotherapy, and psychological services.

The Tribunal found the hospital bed rental payable because the insurer's denial failed to comply with the medical reasons requirement under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The physiotherapy plan was deemed reasonable and necessary based on the treating physician's recommendation.

However, the catastrophic assessment and the disputed portion of the psychological services plan were denied.

Claims for a special award were dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also approved a treatment plan for an occupational therapy assessment as reasonable and necessary, and awarded interest on overdue payments.

The applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed, as there was no evidence of unreasonable withholding or delay by the respondent.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit.

The applicant, a pedestrian, was struck by a driver whose insurance policy with the respondent had expired.

The respondent argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction by effectively deciding a priority dispute and erred in finding the applicant was an 'insured person'.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no jurisdictional error or error of law.

It affirmed that the original decision correctly applied the 'nexus' test from Kingsway, establishing that the applicant's reliance on information that the driver was insured by the respondent created a sufficient connection to require the respondent to adjust the claim pending any priority dispute.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied three treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing for one treatment plan submitted more than 260 weeks after the accident, as there was insufficient evidence of optional benefits or catastrophic impairment.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the other two treatment plans for chiropractic treatment, as the medical evidence established they were reasonable and necessary to address ongoing pain and functional limitations caused by the accident.

The applicant was also awarded interest on the overdue benefits.

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 driver was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had been able to use taxis, public transit, and occasional rides from friends to attend work and medical appointments.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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 Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of physical impairments warranting removal from the MIG, and gave no weight to a psychological report as psychological issues were not in dispute.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the claims for physiotherapy treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to 24/7 attendant care benefits (ACBs) at $6,000 per month due to catastrophic psychiatric impairments.

The respondent insurer approved a lower monthly amount, arguing that 24/7 care was contrary to the recommendations of hospital psychiatrists and would hinder recovery.

The Tribunal found that 24/7 supervisory care was reasonable and necessary, relying on the applicant's treating psychiatrist who noted severe suicidal ideation.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $15,120 in past incurred ACBs plus interest, but declined to deem further ACBs incurred or order a special award, finding the insurer's reliance on its assessors was not unreasonable.

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).

The applicant contended that he developed chronic pain with functional impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence, such as a formal diagnosis or particulars of functional impairment, to establish chronic pain.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, and therefore the disputed treatment plans for a chronic pain assessment and physiotherapy were not payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an incident where she injured her knee after exiting her parked vehicle and stepping onto a curb.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the two-part test from Caughy and found that the vehicle was merely being used for support, which is not an ordinary and well-known activity for which automobiles are put.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that lifting her foot to step onto the curb was an intervening act and the dominant feature that caused her injuries, not the use or operation of the vehicle.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans based on insurer examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, placing greater weight on the contemporaneous insurer examination reports which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and had no ongoing accident-related impairments.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following the death of his son in a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant was not a 'dependant' of the deceased under section 3(7)(b) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not principally dependent on his son for financial support or care, as the financial contributions from the son did not amount to 51% or more of the applicant's household expenses.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for funeral benefits because the applicant failed to prove he incurred the expenses.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her psychological and physical injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's because it better aligned with contemporaneous medical records.

While most of the respondent's denial letters complied with s. 38(8) of the Schedule, one denial for a psychological assessment was found non-compliant for failing to provide specific medical reasons.

Consequently, the respondent was ordered to pay expenses incurred under that plan until the defective notice was cured.

The applicant's claim for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed, as the non-compliant notice was deemed a wrong adjusting decision rather than unreasonable conduct.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had been laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic prior to the accident and had only worked 22 weeks in the 52 weeks preceding the accident, falling short of the 26-week statutory requirement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not 'employed' at the time of the accident within the meaning of section 5(1) of the Schedule, as intent to return to work does not satisfy the requirement of receiving wages for services.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The application for IRBs and interest was dismissed.