OLAT 2026

The appellants, who were issued Administrative Penalty Orders totaling $842,057.40 for allegedly selling homes without a vendor license, brought a motion seeking the production of various documents from the respondent's investigation.

The respondent argued that it had already disclosed all documents relied upon by the Assessor and that the request was overly broad.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering the production of specific emails, complaints, and investigation documents that were relevant to the calculation of the penalty and the foundation of the facts, while denying requests for third-party records and documents that did not exist.

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

The respondent insurer denied benefits, arguing the application was delayed without a reasonable explanation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, being seven years old at the time of the accident and reliant on her parents, had a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's minority status, her parents' language barriers, and the lack of significant prejudice to the insurer.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with her claim.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB), interest, and an award.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law in assessing the validity of the insurer's notices under section 36(4) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the rehearing adjudicator correctly applied the law in determining that the insurer's requests for information were compliant, thereby not triggering the mandatory payment provisions of section 36(6).

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).

The applicant argued that she suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG, and sought a non-earner benefit (NEB) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her injuries fell outside the MIG, noting a lack of compelling medical evidence linking her chronic pain and psychological complaints to the accident.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an NEB, finding insufficient evidence comparing her pre- and post-accident activities.

The application was dismissed.

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 Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment, noting the applicant's medical records primarily documented non-accident-related concerns.

The Tribunal also placed little weight on a psychological pre-screen report that relied on self-reporting without validity measures.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the $3,500 MIG limit, rendering the disputed treatment plans moot.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant entitled to outstanding amounts for psychological and psychotherapy services, accepting that a registered psychotherapist could reasonably bill at a rate comparable to a psychologist when providing structured cognitive behavioural therapy under clinical supervision.

The Tribunal also approved a chiropractic treatment plan and assessments for neurology and chronic pain, finding them reasonable and necessary based on ongoing symptoms.

However, a comprehensive chronic pain program was denied due to insufficient evidence of severity and functional decline.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer argued the applicant was barred from proceeding because he failed to submit his application (OCF-1) within 30 days of receiving the forms, as required by section 32(5) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant initially reported no injuries, the respondent failed to discharge its duty under section 32(2) to provide the accident benefits package.

Because the package was never provided, the 30-day timeline did not commence.

The applicant is not barred from proceeding with his claim.

The insured requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that ordered her to repay Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and denied her claims for physiotherapy treatment plans.

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration in part, finding that the original hearing adjudicator committed a material breach of procedural fairness by excluding the insured's reply submissions.

Furthermore, the original decision contained errors of law by incorrectly concluding that non-compliance with section 33 of the Schedule allowed the insurer to claim repayment for past paid IRBs, and by failing to consider the insurer's compliance with section 38 and the insured's expert medical evidence regarding the treatment plans.

The substantive issues were remitted for a new hearing.

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 demonstrated chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

The claim for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed as the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of being unreasonable, but interest was awarded on overdue payments.

The applicant sought $1,602.05 for medication expenses, an award for unreasonable delay, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed the accident caused a re-emergence of epileptic seizures and psychological symptoms.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the medications were reasonable and necessary to treat accident-related injuries.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's neurologist, who found no traumatic neurological injury explaining the seizures, and noted the applicant's treating neurologist also found no connection to the accident.

As no benefits were payable, the claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a May 2020 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied treatment plans for chiropractic, psychological, and psychiatric services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that she suffered from accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition that would warrant removal from the MIG, noting a subsequent accident in June 2024 complicated causation.

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

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the applicant failed to attend scheduled insurer's examinations (IEs).

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding with her claim for physiotherapy services due to her unexcused failure to attend two reasonably necessary IEs.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to prove she sustained an accident-related psychological impairment warranting treatment outside the MIG.

The application for psychological benefits, an award, and interest 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 Tribunal found that MRI evidence of a disc herniation warranted the applicant's removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved two physiotherapy treatment plans as reasonable and necessary, supported by contemporaneous medical recommendations.

However, other treatment plans for physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, and an orthopaedic assessment were denied due to a lack of supporting evidence or availability through OHIP.

The claim for an award for unreasonable withholding of benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

Relying on the respondent's section 44 physiatry and psychological assessments, the Tribunal concluded there was no objective evidence of chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a psychological assessment, assistive devices, and occupational therapy services.

The Tribunal found the psychological assessment and assistive devices were not reasonable and necessary, relying on independent examinations and a lack of contemporaneous evidence supporting the claims.

However, the Tribunal approved the occupational therapy services, finding them supported by functional capacity assessments and a physiatrist's diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue occupational therapy benefits.

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

The Registrar suspended the licence after receiving medical reports indicating the appellant suffered from a severe substance use disorder involving crack cocaine.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's history of repeated relapses, including a recent relapse shortly after a previous licence reinstatement, demonstrated that his condition was not adequately controlled.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's substance use disorder was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claims for major structural defects relating to brick veneer and roof assembly.

The appellant argued that both claims should have been assessed under second-year warranty criteria rather than major structural defect criteria, and that Tarion failed to assess the roof claim entirely.

The Tribunal held that it lacked the authority to reopen the second-year claims process or to order Tarion to assess a major structural defect claim using second-year criteria.

However, the Tribunal found that Tarion had failed to assess the specific roof condensation claim listed in the appellant's form, mistakenly believing it had been addressed under a different item.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to conduct a conciliation and issue an assessment report for the roof claim under the major structural defect warranty.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired and denied her claims for attendant care benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to properly engage with her expert's diagnosis of Somatic Symptom Disorder and improperly relied on surveillance evidence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the Tribunal's weighing of the evidence rather than identifying an error of law or fact under Rule 18.2.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as she relied solely on the driver's verbal assurance that he was licensed and took no steps to verify his status.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as she was able to use public transit and walk to complete her daily activities.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The applicant sought funding for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence or submissions to demonstrate that his injuries, including alleged chronic pain and psychological conditions, warranted removal from the MIG.

As the applicant was held to the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans were not analyzed for reasonableness and necessity.

The application was dismissed.