OLAT 2026

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 the applicant suffered from chronic pain and a T1-T2 herniated disc, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the respondent failed to provide compliant denial notices under s. 38(8) of the Schedule for two treatment plans, triggering mandatory payment under s. 38(11).

The treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment was deemed reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of several treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services, travel expenses, and a claim for an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found the chiropractic and two psychological treatment plans to be reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating physicians over the insurer's examiners.

The claim for travel expenses was denied as it did not meet the statutory criteria for emergency transportation, and one psychological treatment plan was denied because it was not submitted into evidence.

The Tribunal also denied the request for a special award, finding no unreasonable delay by the respondent, but awarded interest on the overdue benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for three treatment plans for chiropractic services, which the respondent insurer denied.

The respondent also sought to exclude the clinical notes and records of the applicant's family physician due to alleged late disclosure, which the Tribunal denied as the respondent had prior notice of them.

The Tribunal found the treatment plans reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's assessors and treating physician over the respondent's insurer examinations.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the treatment plans and interest on overdue payments.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the criteria for chronic pain under the AMA Guides, noting a lack of evidence of excessive dependence on healthcare providers, physical deconditioning, or withdrawal from social activities.

Relying on the respondent's section 44 physiatry assessment, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant, a minor, sought accident benefits following a 2022 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans and requested an insurer's examination (IE) with a pediatric neurologist after receiving a report linking the applicant's symptoms to the accident.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled IE, citing travel to India, and did not provide a reasonable explanation or cooperate in rescheduling.

The Tribunal found the IE request was reasonably necessary and timely.

Consequently, the applicant was barred from proceeding with the application under section 55(1)2 of the Schedule, and the application was dismissed.

The appellant, a registered career college, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its registration under the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005.

The Superintendent proposed revocation on the basis that the appellant failed to provide refunds to students after its Diagnostic Medical Sonography program was revoked and lost accreditation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant ignored written demands for refunds from students for over ten months, causing them financial and emotional distress.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's refusal to comply with the refund requirements of Ontario Regulation 415/06 demonstrated that it would not operate the college in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal declined to impose the appellant's proposed conditions and directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), non-earner benefits (NEBs), medical and rehabilitation benefits, and attendant care benefits.

The adjudicator dismissed the claim for IRBs because the applicant had been on long-term disability for 20 years and was not employed at the time of the accident.

The claim for NEBs was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, with self-reported evidence showing he could still perform most pre-accident activities.

The adjudicator partially approved a treatment plan, awarding funds for physiotherapy and massage therapy to address exacerbated pre-existing conditions, but denied chiropractic and pharmacotherapy services.

The claim for attendant care benefits was deemed premature as the required Form-1 had not been properly submitted to the insurer.

The request for a special award was also dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which were denied by the respondent insurer.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to support removal from the MIG, noting a lack of evidence linking his chronic pain or psychological complaints to the subject accident.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit, finding he failed to submit a disability certificate within the required 104-week period and did not meet the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Claims for medical benefits, examination expenses, and interest were similarly dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for statutory accident benefits.

The original decision found that the income replacement benefit and treatment plans in dispute had already been paid or approved by the respondent.

The applicant argued the Tribunal ignored medical evidence, misunderstood his adjournment request, and failed to consider his written submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact and no breach of procedural fairness, noting that the applicant's submissions were primarily focused on an adjournment rather than the substantive issues.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, including funding for physiatry, chronic pain, and neurological assessments, as well as assistive devices.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis of a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence and the application of the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting the absence of contemporaneous medical records corroborating the applicant's self-reported chronic pain.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent complied with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to persistent back pain and headaches.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on medical records showing pre-existing back pain and a prior stroke as the cause of the headaches.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plan for chiropractic services was not payable, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

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) and claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and physiotherapy treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's soft tissue injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove his pre-existing heart condition precluded his recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding the applicant did not demonstrate a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as an Uber driver, noting post-accident stress tests showed physical capabilities similar to his pre-accident state.

All claims were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant sought removal from the MIG based on chronic pain, pre-existing conditions including gout and hypertension, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to establish that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessments.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant was struck by a truck while crossing an intersection on her mobility scooter and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and psychological services, as well as claims for out-of-pocket expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant entitled to certain occupational therapy services due to a defective denial notice, as well as reimbursement for medication, damaged glasses, and dental repairs.

The Tribunal also ordered a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the insurer acted unreasonably by expecting a family member to install a bed rail gratuitously instead of paying the installation cost.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after falling near her vehicle while preparing to transport her father.

The respondent denied benefits and raised preliminary issues regarding whether the incident was an "accident" and whether the application was statute-barred due to late notification.

The Tribunal found that the incident met the purpose and causation tests for an "accident" under the Schedule.

However, the applicant failed to notify the respondent within the prescribed time limits and did not provide a reasonable explanation for the four-year delay.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for relief from forfeiture, finding willful blindness and ongoing negligence.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from claiming a non-earner benefit because she failed to submit a disability certificate within 104 weeks of the accident.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was barred from claiming various treatment plans because she failed to dispute the insurer's valid denials within the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, noting the applicant provided no evidence of an intention to appeal or explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

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

After the respondent approved the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, the only remaining issues were the applicant's entitlement to a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 and interest on overdue payments.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the stand-alone issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for a special award, finding the respondent's withholding of benefits was reasonable due to the applicant's failure to attend scheduled insurer's examinations.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay interest on the portions of the treatment plans that had been incurred.

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 Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had access to and utilized alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, carpooling, and hiring third-party services.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order (ITSO) issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

At the hearing, the appellants requested an adjournment to retain counsel and obtain a Farsi interpreter, and opposed the extension of the ITSOs.

The Tribunal found it lacked authority to extend the timeframe for considering the ITSO extension under the Act.

However, because the appellants' failure to secure an interpreter delayed the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal extended the ITSOs until the conclusion of the hearing pursuant to s. 10(4)(b) of the Act.

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 the exacerbation of pre-existing physical and psychological conditions from a prior accident.

The Tribunal found insufficient compelling medical evidence to establish that the pre-existing conditions would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

Consequently, the applicant was not removed from the MIG, and the claims for treatment plans, an award for unreasonable delay, and interest were dismissed.