Avvy Go

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

She argued that she was driving the vehicle, not her suspended friend, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her subsequent loss of employment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the police officer's evidence that the suspended friend was driving to be credible.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle and failed to establish that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son drove it while his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had an alternative vehicle available, as his spouse owned a vehicle that they were using for transportation.

The Tribunal also found no threat to health or safety and no immediate, significant, and lasting economic loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant missed the 15-day deadline to file an appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act by two days.

She brought a motion for an extension of time to file the appeal.

The Tribunal applied the four factors from Manuel v. Registrar and found that the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the two-day delay was minimal, there was no prejudice to the respondent, and the appeal had some merit.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had access to a second leased vehicle (a van) and her son could find other ways to commute to work.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no threat to health or safety and no immediate, significant, and lasting economic loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order by the Registrar to refuse its registration as a gaming supplier.

The Registrar based its refusal on the past conduct of the appellant's principal, which included multiple infractions of the OLG Lottery Retailer Manual, convictions under the Smoke Free Ontario Act, and a failure to disclose these infractions and past criminal charges on the application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the principal's repeated failure to comply with industry-specific rules and his lack of candour demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act with honesty, integrity, or in accordance with the law, and directed the Registrar to refuse the registration.

The Registrar proposed to suspend the registration of the appellants as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties attended a case conference and subsequently submitted a signed agreement consenting to an order with terms and conditions, waiving the requirement for a hearing.

The Tribunal issued a consent order imposing conditions related to compliance, books and records, and financial responsibility, and the appellants' request for a hearing was withdrawn.

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 result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's roommate drove it while his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as friends and neighbours assisted her with groceries and medical appointments.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no threat to health or safety and concluded that the financial impact of the impoundment fee did not constitute exceptional hardship under the legislation.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her son drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to transport her autistic son, who refused to wear a mask on public transit, and because the isolation exacerbated her own PTSD.

The Tribunal found that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle and that the impoundment posed a serious threat to the health and safety of both the appellant and her son.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle, which was impounded after his daughter was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because he needed the vehicle for his two jobs and to transport family members to medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as he and his family had already been using rental vehicles, public transit, and rides from friends and family.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic and physiotherapy services.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that her pre-existing degenerative disc disease in her cervical spine and left shoulder prevented her from achieving maximal recovery, thereby removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a pre-existing condition, she failed to provide compelling evidence that it prevented her from achieving maximal recovery.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries fell within the MIG and dismissed the claims for medical benefits and interest.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motorcycle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The appellant had sold the motorcycle to a purchaser who was caught driving while suspended before fully paying for the vehicle.

The Tribunal found no evidence of due diligence, as the bill of sale did not restrict the purchaser from driving and the appellant did not check the purchaser's licence.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the appellant owned two other vehicles and his only hardship was financial loss, which does not meet the statutory criteria.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision that found her motor vehicle accident injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and dismissed her claims for medical benefits.

She argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by ignoring late-filed MRI results, erred in law by not finding the insurer improperly denied a treatment plan, and erred in fact regarding chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the applicant was given the opportunity to present the MRI evidence, which ultimately did not establish a pre-existing condition or link to the accident.

While the adjudicator acknowledged an error in failing to address the insurer's denial under s. 38 of the Schedule, she concluded the outcome would not have changed because the insurer's request for a s. 44 examination was reasonable given the lack of medical documentation.

The adjudicator's findings on chronic pain and psychological impairments were upheld as proper weighings of the evidence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She argued that she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not exercise due diligence because she failed to ask her son to show his licence, especially given that her vehicle had previously been impounded when he drove it while suspended.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the appellant owned a second vehicle that she used regularly, meaning she had an alternative means of transportation.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her ex-partner, whose licence was suspended, was caught driving it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as there were alternatives to the impounded vehicle available, such as public transit, taxis, and delivery services.

Furthermore, there was no demonstrated threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle for driving while suspended.

He argued that he exercised due diligence by assuming his lawyer had filed an appeal of his criminal charges, which would have reinstated his licence, and that taking public transit during the COVID-19 pandemic constituted exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not exercise due diligence, as he failed to confirm the status of his appeal or licence before driving.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, distinguishing the case from precedent, as the appellant did not demonstrate an amplified risk of contagion on public transit.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's mechanic, whose licence was suspended, was found in the vehicle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant owned multiple other vehicles and therefore had alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

Loss of convenience is not a permitted factor under the regulation, and the appellant failed to establish a threat to health or safety.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) and medical benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a cleaner for the first 104 weeks, entitling her to IRB for that period.

However, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited beyond the 104-week mark, as she had subsequently worked as a caregiver.

The claims for psychological and physiotherapy treatment plans were dismissed for lack of evidence proving they were reasonable and necessary.

A claim for a special award was also dismissed.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered predominantly soft tissue injuries and did not establish a chronic pain diagnosis or a clinically significant psychological impairment caused by the accident.

As the applicant's injuries were subject to the MIG and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted, the claims for additional medical benefits and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, pre-existing injuries, and psychological issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving his injuries fell outside the MIG.

The medical evidence did not support a finding of chronic pain under the AMA criteria, nor did it establish a significant psychological impairment or that a pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery.

Consequently, the claims for a psychological assessment, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the treatment plans and the applicant filed an appeal with the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was statute-barred because it was filed after 5:00 p.m. on the final day of the two-year limitation period, making it deemed received on the next business day.

The adjudicator found that while the Tribunal has jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the limitation period, it would not exercise that discretion.

Applying the four-factor test, the adjudicator found no bona fide intent to appeal within the period and no merit to the appeal, as the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.