OLAT 2026

The Applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was barred from disputing several treatment plans because she failed to apply within the two-year limitation period, noting the insurer's denials were compliant with the requirements in Smith v. Co-operators.

For the remaining treatment plans, the Tribunal dismissed the claims, finding the Applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence demonstrating that the proposed multidisciplinary, neurological, physiotherapy, and psychological treatments were reasonable and necessary.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence unpersuasive, noting a lack of corroboration in clinical records and preferring the respondent's psychological assessment which found no substantive psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, dismissing the claims for psychological treatment, assessment, and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit and a physiotherapy treatment plan outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her soft tissue injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting she had returned to her pre-accident activities in a reduced capacity.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding no complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for an award and interest.

In the initial hearing, the applicant had withdrawn his substantive claim for an attendant care benefit.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact, as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant an award or interest when no substantive benefits were found to be payable.

The applicant's attempt to introduce new evidence in the form of attendant care invoices was also rejected, as it would not have affected the outcome given the withdrawal of the underlying benefit claim.

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

The respondent insurer initially confined the applicant to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied various treatment plans and income replacement benefits (IRB).

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were non-minor, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal awarded IRB for a specific period due to the insurer's non-compliance with s. 36(4) response timelines, but denied post-104 IRB.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for physiotherapy, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Notably, the Tribunal ordered a 35% special award against the insurer under s. 10 of Reg. 664, finding its conduct in adjusting the claim—including ignoring clear evidence of psychological injury and delaying IRB responses for over a year—to be imprudent, inflexible, and unyielding.

Costs were not ordered.

The applicant was struck by an unidentified driver as a pedestrian and failed to notify the respondent of his intention to claim accident benefits within the prescribed time.

The respondent argued the claim was statute-barred.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, an unsophisticated person with no knowledge of automobile insurance, provided a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal concluded that the hardship to the applicant outweighed any prejudice to the respondent, allowing the applicant to proceed to a substantive issues 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 failed to provide persuasive medical evidence to support removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant failed to provide evidence of accident-related functional impairments preventing him from working.

Claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for 30-day warranty coverage for several items in their new home, primarily focusing on knots and squeaking in the hardwood flooring, trim colour, and the placement of an air conditioning unit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the flooring issues were aesthetic and acceptable for character grade flooring, and that the appellants failed to prove any defects in workmanship or materials for the other items.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was ordered to deny the warranty claims.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for optometric services, a functional abilities evaluation, and physiotherapy following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his onus to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference from the applicant's failure to produce agreed-upon medical and employment records.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which indicated the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and that the proposed vision therapy was not a recognized treatment.

The applicant sought a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, alleging the respondent unreasonably delayed payment of an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The respondent argued the claim should be dismissed for procedural unfairness due to lack of particulars, which the Tribunal rejected.

The Tribunal found the respondent's conduct between February 29, 2024, and April 4, 2024, was excessive and imprudent, as the adjuster failed to actively review the file or address inconsistencies in the applicant's employment status until a complaint was lodged.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $704.36, representing 50% of the IRB payable during the period of unreasonable delay, plus interest.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their Year-End Form warranty claims regarding sod levelling, roof shingles, and interior dapping.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the builder breached the statutory warranty under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal noted the sod issues were aesthetic, the roof showed no significant defects, and the dapping gaps were likely caused by low humidity in the home.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was ordered to deny the claims.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits arising from a motor vehicle accident involving her mother when the applicant was seven years old.

The applicant submitted an application for benefits (OCF-1) nearly twelve years after the accident and almost two years after turning eighteen.

The insurer denied the claim due to the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in submitting the OCF-1 after reaching the age of majority.

The application was dismissed as the applicant was barred from proceeding under section 55(1) of the Schedule.

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

The respondent denied the claim for catastrophic impairment and scheduled insurer's examinations (IEs).

The respondent alleged the applicant failed to attend rescheduled IEs and sought to dismiss the application as a preliminary issue.

The Tribunal found the respondent's allegation was pre-emptive and speculative, as there was no evidence the applicant failed to attend the most recently scheduled IEs.

The Tribunal held the respondent did not meet its burden to show non-attendance, and ordered the parties to proceed to the substantive hearing.

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

The adjudicator found insufficient evidence to support removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's because it was based on clinical testing and medical records rather than solely self-reported data.

The applicant also failed to establish a functional impairment from chronic pain.

The application for a psychological assessment, interest, and a section 10 award was dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that ordered payment of disputed treatment plans due to defective denial notices under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The insurer argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by relying on un-cited binding case law, and erred in law by not applying the 260-week limitation period under s. 20(1)(a) to the s. 38(11) remedy.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as parties are expected to know binding law, and holding that the consumer protection mandate of the Schedule dictates that s. 20(1)(a) does not constrain the specific remedial provisions of s. 38(11).

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a catastrophic impairment assessment.

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

Finding that proper notice was given, the Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet their burden of proof.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $1,524.00 for a chiropractic treatment plan.

The respondent insurer denied the benefit, relying on an insurer's examination which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary, placing less weight on the insurer's examination as it was inconsistent with diagnostic imaging and the longitudinal clinical record showing ongoing shoulder and chest impairments.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the treatment plan.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a concussion assessment and a physiotherapy treatment program.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits based on an insurer's examination report.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including assessments from a psychologist, a chronic pain physician, and a concussion management physiotherapist, outweighed the respondent's general practitioner report, which lacked specific concussion testing.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed treatment plans and interest on overdue payments.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award, finding the respondent's reliance on its medical reports was not unreasonable or arbitrary.

The applicant sought entitlement to various treatment plans for chiropractic services, yoga therapy, assistive devices, and a nutritional assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden.

Specifically, the applicant failed to provide copies of the disputed treatment plans, making it impossible to determine the exact services, goals, and costs proposed.

The Tribunal also found insufficient medical evidence to support the reasonableness and necessity of the claimed benefits.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to its carpet installation business.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as required by O. Reg. 631/98, because the business owned a second similar vehicle and was able to maintain operations by using it and having suppliers deliver products.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.