Avril A. Farlam

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim because the disability certificate submitted by the applicant indicated she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

In a preliminary issue hearing, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to submit a 'completed' disability certificate as required by section 36(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, because the certificate did not certify that she met the criterion for the benefit.

The application for non-earner benefits was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it was stolen by a friend and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the appellant had given implied consent by leaving the friend in her home with access to a spare key.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to public transit as an alternative to the impounded vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had a history of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder and had recently withdrawn his consent to treatment and stopped taking his prescribed medication.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's condition was not stable and was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

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

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his driver's licence from Class D to Class G following a single unprovoked seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant did suffer a seizure, the condition was controlled by medication, monitored by a neurologist, and unlikely to recur given his lifestyle changes.

The Tribunal concluded the condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and set aside the Minister's decision.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it caused exceptional hardship.

She claimed she needed the vehicle for work and medical appointments, and that the impoundment fees caused financial hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternative modes of transportation available, such as rides from family, friends, and taxis.

Because alternatives existed, the Tribunal could not consider financial loss or inconvenience, and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed a 90-day driver's licence suspension imposed after a police officer determined his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug.

The appellant argued he had no illegal drugs in his system and that a medical condition impacted his performance on the evaluation.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove his ability to drive was not impaired by a drug, noting his admission to taking prescription narcotics and his poor performance on the evaluation.

The Tribunal also found insufficient medical evidence to prove a medical condition impaired his performance.

The suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar proposed refusal because the appellant failed to disclose prior criminal convictions for drug trafficking and possession, and provided a false and misleading explanation for a mischief conviction he did disclose.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, specifically his dishonesty and lack of integrity in his dealings with the regulator during the application process, afforded reasonable grounds for the belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to cognitive impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that medical evidence, including a diagnosis of dementia and a failed functional driving assessment, established that the appellant suffers from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

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

The appellant filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal order that denied his motion to extend the time to file an appeal of his vehicle impoundment and dismissed his appeal.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish any of the grounds required for reconsideration under Rule 18, as he merely repeated previous submissions and raised irrelevant personal circumstances.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 90-day suspension of his driver's licence under section 48.3 of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to provide a breath sample.

He argued that he was unable to provide the sample due to asthma and panic attacks.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was medically unable to provide the sample.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the arresting officer, who testified that the appellant made weak blows, failed to make a seal, and exhibited no signs of respiratory distress, over the evidence of the appellant and his family physician.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act due to a substance use disorder.

The suspension followed a motor vehicle accident and a medical report indicating the appellant had used fentanyl and methadone prior to the collision.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a severe substance use disorder, relying on medical records and the appellant's admission of illicit drug use.

Applying the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, as he had not abstained from drugs for 12 months and lacked a favourable recommendation from an addiction specialist.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by his niece's boyfriend and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant gave implied consent by allowing his niece to drive the vehicle, who then permitted her boyfriend to drive.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to alternative transportation such as public transit, rides from friends, and Uber.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as walking, running, and using a rental car provided by her insurance company.

Because alternatives existed, the Tribunal could not consider financial loss and concluded that exceptional hardship was not established.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed medical reports from a neurologist and a family physician, as well as the appellant's own testimony, which confirmed she had recently experienced seizures and had not yet achieved a stabilized or controlled condition.

Applying the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal found that the appellant's condition was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle for driving while suspended.

The vehicle was impounded on February 26, 2019, but the appellant did not file his appeal until May 23, 2019, well past the 15-day statutory deadline.

The appellant argued the delay was due to his incarceration and lack of access to a computer.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant, the respondent would be prejudiced, and the merits of the appeal were weak because the appellant had access to an alternative vehicle and public transit.

The motion for an extension of time was denied and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a hypoglycemic event.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant has diabetes, he had regained excellent glycemic control using a continuous blood glucose monitoring device and had not experienced further hypoglycemic episodes.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's medical condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle for driving while suspended.

The appeal was filed 26 days after the expiry of the 15-day appeal period.

During the hearing, the appellant withdrew his motion and intended appeal, refusing to testify further about the merits.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, a lengthy delay, and no possibility of success on the merits given the withdrawal.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, had his commercial driver's licence downgraded from Class DZ to Class G by the Minister of Transportation after suffering a single epileptic seizure in his sleep.

The appellant appealed the decision to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant did suffer an epileptic seizure, the condition was well-controlled by medication and he was at low risk for recurrence.

The Tribunal concluded that the condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a Class D motor vehicle safely, and set aside the Minister's decision to downgrade the licence.

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

She argued she was driving the vehicle and her licence was not suspended, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the police officer's evidence credible that another individual, whose licence was suspended, was driving the vehicle.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship as the appellant had alternative modes of transportation available.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 90-day suspension of her driver's licence for refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing she was medically unable to do so due to acute anxiety and cancer treatments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence linking her conditions to an inability to provide a breath sample.

The Tribunal accepted the police officers' evidence that the appellant understood the demand and the consequences of refusal, and chose not to provide the sample.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.