Avril A. Farlam

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing exceptional hardship due to missed medical appointments and financial strain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had an alternative to the impounded vehicle, namely her husband's vehicle, which he used to assist her during the impoundment period.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its registration as a travel agent under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, which was issued due to a failure to submit financial statements.

The parties resolved the issues and consented to an order continuing the appellant's registration subject to conditions, including timely filing of financial statements and responding to requests from the Registrar.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Grant Registration issued by the Registrar under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The parties resolved the issues in dispute and submitted signed Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal issued a consent order under s. 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and s. 14(5) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, disposing of the proceeding without a hearing on the terms set out in the Minutes of Settlement.

The terms included the withdrawal of the Notice of Proposal and the appellant's application for registration, with the ability to reapply after February 3, 2023.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as walking, taking taxis, and receiving rides from family and friends.

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

The appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Notice of Proposal refusing to register him as a motor vehicle inspection station mechanic.

The appellant filed his appeal approximately 9.5 months after the 15-day deadline.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, substantial delay, and that the appeal was unlikely to succeed on the merits.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed a $1,500 monetary penalty for exceeding the licensed capacity of a patio.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by denying an adjournment, made errors of fact and law, and that new evidence showed the municipality acted in bad faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness in denying the last-minute adjournment, no errors of law or fact, and that the new evidence was both obtainable prior to the hearing and irrelevant to the capacity contravention.

The Kitchener Fire Department brought a motion to partially lift the stay of an inspection order regarding a single-family dwelling with nine student tenants.

The property owners had appealed the order, which automatically stayed it.

The Fire Department sought to prevent new tenants from moving in before the appeal hearing, citing public safety concerns due to unauthorized bedrooms.

The property owners did not attend the motion hearing.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence that lifting the stay was necessary in the interest of public safety, especially given the upcoming appeal hearing and the five-month compliance period originally granted.

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded while being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The appellant had the option to rent a replacement vehicle but chose to defer business instead.

Consequently, the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that partially granted attendant care and chiropractic benefits but dismissed other claims.

The applicant argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by improperly weighing medical evidence and failing to provide sufficient reasons.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness or errors of law or fact, noting that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate issues already decided.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that found her application for statutory accident benefits was statute-barred.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant's reply submissions on the reconsideration, arguing they improperly raised new issues.

The Tribunal granted the motion to strike the reply submissions but declined to award costs.

On the reconsideration, the Tribunal found no error of law or fact in its previous application of the Manuel test for extending limitation periods or its interpretation of s. 56 of the Schedule.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claim for additional attendant care benefits.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the main issue, ignored evidence, and demonstrated bias.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness, no error of law or fact, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The original decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for a Liquor Licence.

An added party objected to the issuance of the licence, citing concerns about the proximity to schools, poverty, and crime in the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the added party failed to prove that issuing the licence was not in the public interest, noting the appellant's compliance plans and training.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to a single condition agreed upon by the parties requiring signage asking patrons to keep outdoor noise to a minimum.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she took no steps to verify the driver's licence status.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including working from home and obtaining groceries with assistance.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that partially granted attendant care and chiropractic benefits but dismissed the remaining claims.

The applicant argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by improperly weighing medical evidence and failing to provide sufficient reasons.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the original decision fully considered the evidence, provided adequate reasons, and contained no errors of law or fact.

The reconsideration request was deemed an attempt to re-litigate the issues.

The applicant was injured in a single-vehicle collision when his car left the road and struck a rock face.

The respondent insurer denied accident benefits, arguing the incident was an intentional suicide attempt and therefore not an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony credible that he lost control of the vehicle and did not intend to commit suicide, despite his history of mental health issues and suicidal ideation.

The Tribunal concluded the incident met the purpose and causation tests for an accident, as the use or operation of the automobile was the direct cause of the injuries.

The appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant argued she was unaware of her right to appeal until after the 15-day statutory deadline had passed.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, noted prejudice to the respondent regarding impoundment fees, and concluded the appeal lacked merit as there was insufficient evidence to support the appellant's claim that the vehicle had been stolen.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) denying her claim for reimbursement from the Travel Compensation Fund.

The appellant had paid $2,630 for airfare, but the travel agency went bankrupt.

She filed her claim with TICO four months after the six-month statutory deadline had expired.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that section 60(2) of O. Reg. 26/05 is unambiguous and neither TICO nor the Tribunal has the authority to override the statutory time limit.

The appeal was dismissed and the claim was refused.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence (Class AC to Class G) following a medical report of ventricular tachycardia and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant has a cardiac condition, it is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely.

The incident was isolated and caused by a medication change, which has since been corrected, and the appellant's cardiologist supported the reinstatement of his commercial licence.

The Tribunal set aside the Minister's decision.

The appellant appealed an Order of the Fire Marshal confirming an Inspection Order that required her to remove combustible materials from a means of egress.

By the time of the appeal, the fire safety issue had been remedied, but the appellant wished to proceed to address alleged procedural fairness issues and to clear her name.

The Fire Safety Commission brought a motion to determine its jurisdiction.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the fire safety issue was moot and that it lacked the statutory mandate to grant the remedies sought by the appellant, such as conducting a systemic review or clearing her name.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it caused exceptional hardship.

The appellant was driving while her licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as rides from neighbours, Uber, and an online grocery service.

As the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.