OLAT 2026

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but neither party filed submissions or evidence.

The applicant's representative had previously filed a Removal of Representative form.

As the applicant bore the onus of proof and failed to file any evidence, the Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the evidentiary burden to demonstrate entitlement to removal from the Minor Injury Guideline or to the disputed medical benefits, award, and interest.

The application was dismissed.

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 applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain, relying on clinical notes from a rheumatologist.

The Tribunal found the clinical notes were from more than two years post-accident and contained no records of chronic pain caused by the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment as a result of the accident, and therefore her injuries were subject to the MIG limit.

The application for various treatment plans was dismissed.

The applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and payment for a treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a weekly IRB of $45.62 for the first 104 weeks and $185.00 thereafter, rejecting the applicant's calculation that conflated tax years and the respondent's attempt to deduct rental income.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay the balance of a form completion fee for an OCF-18.

Finally, the Tribunal granted an award of 25% of the total IRB payable under section 10 of Regulation 664, finding the respondent unreasonably delayed and withheld benefits despite having the necessary financial information.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied certain treatment plans and a claim for a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its assessment of the evidence regarding psychological, medical, and occupational therapy services.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the original decision and re-weigh the evidence rather than demonstrating a material error of law or fact under Rule 18.2.

The request for a special award was also dismissed as there was no evidence of excessive or imprudent conduct by the insurer.

The Appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claim for financial loss under s. 14(2) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Appellant argued the Builder failed to substantially perform the contract because the home's foundation was built higher than she desired, making it inaccessible due to her mobility challenges.

The Tribunal found that while the Builder failed to substantially perform the contract, the foundation was built within the specifications of the blueprints and building permit.

Because the Appellant rejected the Builder's proposed accessibility solutions and terminated the contract, she did not have a cause of action against the Builder.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claim.

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

The Registrar relied on medical reports from the appellant's physicians indicating a diagnosis of schizophrenia, poor insight, and non-compliance with treatment.

The appellant denied having a mental health condition and claimed his symptoms were caused by shoulder pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the medical evidence more reliable than the appellant's subjective testimony, concluding that his condition 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 several treatment plans 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 his injuries, including alleged post-concussion syndrome, psychological impairments, and chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer examinations over the applicant's self-reported symptoms and chiropractor's report.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable and 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) and that the applicant failed to attend required insurer examinations under s. 44 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding with two treatment plans due to his unexcused failure to attend the scheduled insurer examinations.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, as there was insufficient medical evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the remaining treatment plan was denied, and claims for interest and a s. 10 award were dismissed.

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

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

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

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to establish a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional limitations caused by the accident.

The Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, limiting his entitlement to the MIG cap.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for failing to file submissions.

The applicant provided evidence that she had filed a Notice of Withdrawal prior to the written hearing, which the respondent confirmed receiving.

The Tribunal found it had made an error of fact by not recognizing the Notice of Withdrawal and therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue the original decision.

The reconsideration was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and the application was marked as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to an accident-related psychological impairment (anxiety).

The applicant was awarded one treatment plan for physiotherapy because the insurer failed to provide sufficient medical reasons for its denial under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

However, claims for non-earner benefits, an occupational therapy assessment, and assistive devices were dismissed.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting significant pre-existing limitations, and the occupational therapy expense was incurred before the treatment plan was submitted.

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 applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional limitations or an accident-related psychological impairment, noting a pre-accident history of similar pain and relying on the respondent's independent medical examinations.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit, and dismissed the claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and a special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan, relying on an insurer examination which concluded the applicant's shoulder instability was not accident-related.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to submit evidence or arguments demonstrating the treatment was reasonable and necessary, and lacked jurisdiction to award a requested lump sum for future medical benefits.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident, sought entitlement to various statutory accident benefits including home modifications, assistive devices, and medications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The claim for home modifications was denied under s. 38(2) of the Schedule because the expenses were incurred before the treatment plan was submitted.

The claims for a bathmat, blender, and various supplements were dismissed as the applicant failed to establish they were reasonable and necessary or causally related to the accident.

Claims for interest, a s. 10 award, and costs were also dismissed.

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

The insurer denied an income replacement benefit (IRB) and two treatment plans.

On a rehearing, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the IRB, as medical evidence supported a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment due to chronic pain and a right shoulder impairment.

The Tribunal denied the April 11, 2022 treatment plan as it was submitted while the applicant was in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and duplicated an approved OCF-23.

The September 21, 2022 treatment plan was approved as reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for a special award, finding the insurer's reliance on its assessors' reports was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought $1,818.25 for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and the treatment was for unrelated issues.

The adjudicator found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, as she provided only case law and no contemporaneous corroborating evidence to support the treatment plan.

The applicant's request for $1,000 in costs due to the respondent exceeding page limits in its submissions was also dismissed, as the respondent's conduct was not found to be unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed his claims for accident benefits on the basis that he failed to file submissions or evidence.

The applicant provided proof that his representative had emailed the written submissions and document brief to the Tribunal and the respondent on the due date.

The respondent confirmed receipt.

The Vice-Chair found that the Tribunal made an error of fact by not considering the filed materials, satisfying the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b).

The original decision was cancelled and the matter was ordered to be reheard by a new adjudicator based on the previously filed materials.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired.

She argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by allowing the respondent to cross-examine its own expert neurologist and by rejecting the expert's 5% whole person impairment rating for headaches without notice.

She also argued the Tribunal misapprehended evidence regarding her incontinence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the applicant had notice of the respondent's challenges to the expert's report, the Tribunal was entitled to reject ratings not supported by the AMA Guides, and the evidence supported the finding that there was no post-accident exacerbation of incontinence.