Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and a determination that her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to determine the MIG issue as a standalone dispute without a related claim for medical or rehabilitation benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment within 104 weeks of the accident, noting she had stopped working for unrelated reasons prior to the accident and did not seek medical treatment for accident-related injuries until over four years later.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion seeking a stay of the suspension of his Class A driver's licence pending the appeal of the suspension.

The Tribunal applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test.

While finding a serious issue to be tried, the Tribunal concluded the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The motion for a stay was denied.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his class G driver's licence due to a medical condition, specifically severe hypoglycemia.

The appellant, who has type 1 diabetes, experienced a severe hypoglycemic episode resulting in loss of consciousness after a medication error.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from severe hypoglycemia and that the condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, noting his lack of insight, failure to adhere to the licence suspension, and non-compliance with safe blood sugar monitoring practices.

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

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a treatment plan for chiropractic services, a gym membership, and an ambulance fee.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove the chiropractic services and gym membership were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also found the gym membership was not submitted via a treatment plan as required by s. 38(2) of the Schedule, and the ambulance fee had not been submitted to the applicant's extended health carrier as required by s. 47(2).

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a Medical Condition Report indicating an uncontrolled substance use disorder.

The appellant argued she had been abstinent and was engaged in treatment programs.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, noting the lack of medical evidence confirming recovery and the failure to meet the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers.

The licence suspension was confirmed.

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

The respondent denied funding for several psychological and physiotherapy treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found no compelling medical evidence that the applicant's physical soft tissue injuries or alleged psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, noting the applicant's assessor was not qualified to provide a psychological diagnosis.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial AC driver's licence to a G class licence due to a heart condition and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

The Minister relied on medical reports and the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, which disqualify commercial drivers with an ICD implanted for secondary prophylaxis.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's medical condition, which included ischemic cardiomyopathy and a history of ventricular tachycardia, posed a risk of sudden incapacitation that could not be adequately mitigated by remote monitoring or infrequent driving.

The Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision to downgrade the licence.

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 individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant owned a second vehicle (a 2024 Dodge truck) that could satisfy all of her family's transportation needs.

As the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, she could not prove exceptional hardship.

The applicant, who sustained catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, challenged the incurred expense provisions of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule under the Human Rights Code.

She argued that limiting attendant care compensation for non-professional family members to their demonstrated economic loss constructively discriminated against her based on family status and disability.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the preliminary issue, finding that the provisions apply universally to all non-professional service providers regardless of their relationship to the insured.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to prove economic loss serves as a threshold to prevent windfalls and does not violate the Code.

The applicant sought entitlement to a treatment plan for physiotherapy services in the amount of $4,309.56, an award for unreasonable delay, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the physiotherapy treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous corroborating evidence and that the healthcare providers relied upon were not qualified to assess physical impairments.

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

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and she did not establish a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, or psychological impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

The claims for a chronic pain assessment, psychological assessment, and Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) were dismissed.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to repay $1,227.49 in overpaid IRBs to the respondent, as she had returned to work without notifying the insurer.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a medical condition report indicating an uncontrolled substance use disorder.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in her absence and found that the medical evidence supported the diagnosis of substance use disorder.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded the condition was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

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

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

The insurer 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.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment, noting her pre-existing conditions and lack of functional impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision confirming his driver's licence suspension under the Highway Traffic Act.

He argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by admitting late-filed evidence and erred in its assessment of his impairment and medical condition.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the appellant had sufficient time to review the evidence.

The Tribunal also found no error in the original panel's conclusion that the appellant failed to prove he was not impaired by a drug, which rendered the medical condition analysis unnecessary.

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

The respondent insurer scheduled multiple insurer's examinations under s. 44 of the Schedule to assess the applicant's entitlement to benefits.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled examinations and did not provide a reasonable explanation for her non-attendance.

The Tribunal found that the notices of examination were proper and that the applicant's failure to attend barred her from proceeding with her application pursuant to s. 55(1)2 of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence and the Minister's subsequent decision to downgrade his licence to a Class G(Z).

The Registrar alleged the appellant fraudulently obtained his Class A licence through a bribery scheme involving a driving school and examiner.

The Tribunal found the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the licence was obtained fraudulently, as the evidence presented was insufficient.

The Tribunal set aside the suspension but dismissed the appeal regarding the licence downgrade, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Highway Traffic Act to review decisions made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii).

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal assessed her physical and psychological impairments under Criteria 7 and 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant's Whole Person Impairment rating was 41%, falling short of the 55% threshold, and that she suffered only moderate, not marked or extreme, psychological impairments.

Claims for a non-earner benefit, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence and failure to meet the respective legal tests.

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 chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including a chronic pain assessment, to be internally inconsistent and of limited persuasive value.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit, rendering the disputed treatment plans moot.

However, the Tribunal granted a 5% award against the respondent for unreasonably delaying payment of a previously approved and invoiced treatment plan.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and approval of two treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent provided evidence that the treatment plans had already been approved and the income replacement benefits had been reinstated and subsequently increased.

As the applicant failed to file written submissions or adduce evidence to support a claim for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664, the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit (IRB), following a motor vehicle accident.

In a prior application, the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the IRB.

The applicant subsequently filed a new application claiming an IRB and a catastrophic impairment determination.

The respondent argued the IRB claim was barred by res judicata.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the preconditions for res judicata were met and the applicant failed to establish that the doctrine should be waived based on fresh evidence or fairness.

The applicant was barred from proceeding with the IRB claim.