Avvy Go

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for driving while suspended.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal and brought a motion for an extension of time, believing the appeal was filed late.

The Tribunal found that the 15-day legislated timeline ended on a Saturday, and the following Monday was a statutory holiday.

Applying the Tribunal's rules on counting days, the appeal filed on the Tuesday was within the legislated timeline.

No extension of time was required.

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its vehicle after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by checking the employee's temporary licence upon hiring and claimed the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not verifying the employee's driving record before assigning her to drive.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as alternative transportation was available and the company remained operational.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her husband drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no alternative transportation and that the impoundment caused an immediate, significant, and lasting loss of education, as she was unable to attend her English as a Second Language classes.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRB) after the respondent terminated them.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a sales associate, which was categorized as light work.

The evidence showed the applicant had returned to university and briefly worked another part-time job.

The application for IRBs, interest, and a special award was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of a vehicle registered to her recently deceased husband, arguing exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after a friend borrowed it while their licence was suspended.

The Tribunal first determined that the appellant had standing to appeal as the 'beneficiary owner' despite not having transferred the registration.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as relying on neighbours, taxis, and the Canadian Red Cross for transportation, and therefore did not meet the statutory test for exceptional hardship.

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

She had loaned her vehicle to her daughter's boyfriend, whose licence was suspended for a criminal code conviction.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence, assuming he had a valid licence because he had been driving his own vehicle the day prior.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that acting upon assumptions without taking any steps to ascertain the driver's licence status does not constitute due diligence.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The insurer suspended the IRB after making multiple requests for information and scheduling section 44 assessments, which the applicant delayed in fulfilling.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal seeking interest on overdue payments and a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the insurer's requests for medical and employment records, as well as the assessments, were reasonable and necessary to determine entitlement.

As the delay was caused by the applicant's failure to provide information and attend assessments, no payments were overdue and the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a chronic pain program, psychological assessment, MRI, and a chronic pain assessment report.

The Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding the applicant's self-reporting to her assessors lacked credibility due to inconsistencies with her medical and employment records.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's examinations, which found no objective evidence of accident-related physical or psychological impairments requiring the proposed treatments.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found his claim for Income Replacement Benefits was statute-barred and denied a medical benefit for physiotherapy services under the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant filed the reconsideration request past the 21-day deadline and sought an extension of time.

The adjudicator applied the Manuel factors and found that the applicant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit and that the appeal lacked merit, as the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline.

The request for an extension of time was denied, and the reconsideration request was dismissed.

The Appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed after she failed to provide a breath sample during a traffic stop.

The Appellant argued that she was unable to provide a sufficient breath sample due to severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant made multiple genuine attempts to comply with the breath demand but was physically unable to do so because of her medical condition.

The Tribunal granted the appeal and ordered the suspension set aside.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would result in exceptional hardship.

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as he owned another vehicle and had family members who could assist with transportation.

As the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met, the Tribunal confirmed the impoundment.

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

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

The applicant argued that his injuries were not minor due to chronic pain, neurological injury, post-concussive syndrome, pre-existing conditions, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his physical or psychological injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's s. 44 psychological assessment over the applicant's evidence and rejected the applicant's argument that cultural differences invalidated the respondent's assessment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied funding for a psychological assessment and psychological services, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a psychological impairment (including adjustment disorder and specific phobia) as a result of the accident, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the psychological services and a portion of the psychological assessment, noting the respondent failed to provide timely notice of its denial under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Interest on overdue payments was also awarded.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision denying her non-earner benefits.

She argued the Tribunal erred by addressing the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), which was not in dispute, and by failing to consider her reply submissions.

The respondent also requested reconsideration to correct the denial date and remove the MIG findings.

The adjudicator acknowledged errors in addressing the MIG and missing the reply submissions.

However, the adjudicator found that considering the reply submissions would not have changed the outcome, as they only addressed procedural fairness and not the substantive medical evidence.

The request to vary the decision on non-earner benefits was denied, but the findings regarding the MIG were removed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) and medical benefits.

The respondent denied the claims.

The applicant appealed the IRB denial more than two years after the limitation period expired.

The Tribunal declined to extend the time to appeal under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, finding no bona fide intention to appeal, excessive delay, and lack of merit.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for physiotherapy services, finding the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she was able to rely on rides from others for work, groceries, and medical appointments.

Furthermore, there was no threat to health or safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant, a licensed establishment, appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,500 issued by the Registrar for allegedly permitting drunkenness on its premises.

While the Tribunal found that a patron was indeed intoxicated, it concluded that the Registrar failed to prove the appellant 'permitted' the drunkenness.

The evidence showed the staff did not know, and ought not to have known, of the patron's intoxication in the busy establishment, and they removed the patron immediately upon being notified by the inspector.

The appeal was granted and the monetary penalty was set aside.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a Notice of Proposal to revoke his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar issued the notice based on numerous allegations of fraud, unpaid judgments, and failure to disclose criminal charges.

The appellant claimed he did not receive the notice due to being out of the country.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the four-part test for extending time.

While finding the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the Tribunal concluded the delay was excessive and the appellant failed to demonstrate any merit to his appeal given the serious and largely unanswered allegations of fraud.

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

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

She argued that she exercised due diligence to prevent him from driving and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for her work as a personal support worker.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that she knew her son's licence was suspended and that he had previously taken the vehicle without permission.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the appellant had access to an alternative vehicle borrowed from a family member.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $2,200 for psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500, which had already been largely exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and that the psychological evidence provided was insufficient to remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for benefits and interest, and also denied the respondent's request for costs, finding no bad faith on the part of the applicant.