Bruce Stanton

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant lent it to a relative whose licence was suspended.

The appellant, who suffers from terminal cancer and declining cognition, argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable transportation alternatives to access medical care and household supplies, given his remote location and his daughter's unreliable vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship and ordered the vehicle released.

The applicant sought entitlement to six treatment plans for chiropractic services, massage therapy, and physical therapy following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient corroborating medical evidence to prove the disputed treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of objective improvement in range of motion.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's orthopaedic independent medical examinations, which concluded that only active therapies were reasonable and that the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery from facility-based treatment.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letters complied with section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, a commercial moving company, appealed a Suspension and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles regarding its Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The Order was issued because the appellant had accumulated over $3,100 in unpaid court fines for various traffic convictions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's failure to pay the fines demonstrated an indifference to its legal responsibilities and highway safety standards.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar had sufficient reason under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act to issue the Order and confirmed the suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons following a seizure provoked by a subarachnoid hemorrhage relating to a brain aneurysm.

The appellant argued he had been seizure-free since the incident and sought a reduced waiting period to resume driving for employment reasons.

The Tribunal applied the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers, which require a six-month seizure-free period after the provoking factor has stabilized.

Finding that the appellant's medical condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and that insufficient time had passed to ensure further seizures were unlikely, the Tribunal confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant purchased travel services for Hajj 2022 from a registered travel agent.

Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the appellant could not attend and agreed to postpone the trip to Hajj 2023.

Before the 2023 trip, the travel agent ceased carrying on business and could not be located.

The appellant filed a claim with the Travel Industry Compensation Fund, which was denied on the basis that the agent was still operating in 2022 when the original services were not provided.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant's agreement to postpone the trip did not disentitle him to reimbursement under the Regulation.

The appellant was awarded the maximum allowable compensation of $5,000.

The insurer applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for repayment of $15,764.81 in medical and rehabilitation benefits paid to the respondent, alleging the subject accident was staged.

In a previous preliminary issue decision, the Tribunal found the accident was staged and excluded from the definition of an accident under the Schedule.

Relying on this finding, the Tribunal concluded the respondent wilfully misrepresented the facts of the accident to receive benefits.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to repay the benefits in full, plus applicable interest.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act and brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding the appellant had a genuine intention to appeal and the 3-day delay was not unreasonable.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship because the impounded truck was the family's only vehicle capable of accommodating the wheelchair of the appellant's 10-year-old son, who has severe medical needs.

The Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellants appealed administrative penalty orders (APOs) issued by the Home Construction Regulatory Authority for selling a new home without a vendor licence, contrary to s. 37(1) of the New Home Construction Licensing Act.

The appellants argued they had previously occupied the home for two nights, exempting them from the licensing requirement.

The Tribunal found the brief stay did not meet the legal threshold for residency, rendering them unlicensed vendors.

The Tribunal upheld the APOs but varied the penalty amounts from $122,072.25 to $88,975.86 each to account for carrying costs and improvements made to the property.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding compensation for warranted defects in her condominium's bathrooms.

While Tarion had already provided $19,336.62 to repair the defects, the appellant sought an additional $14,600.00 after a contractor discovered a defective shower membrane during the repair process.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim for additional compensation, finding that the membrane issue was unrelated to the specific warranted items under appeal and that the compensation already provided was sufficient to address the original defects.

The appellant appealed the denial of his claim for $25,000 from the Travel Industry Compensation Fund for Hajj travel packages allegedly purchased from Holy Destinations Travel but not provided.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving he paid for the travel services.

The receipts and documentation provided were inconsistent, irregular, and lacked credibility, particularly given the cash nature of the alleged transaction and the untrustworthiness of the travel agent's principal.

The appeal was dismissed and the claim refused.

The appellant appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles regarding its Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The appellant's safety violation rate had reached 197.36%, placing it among the worst in the province.

Despite previous warnings and an interview, the appellant failed to improve its safety record or implement an action plan.

The Tribunal found the Registrar had reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate its commercial vehicles safely and in accordance with the law.

The Cancellation and Seizure Order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying his claim for delayed occupancy compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The builder had unilaterally extended the Firm Occupancy Date due to the COVID-19 pandemic, relying on the Unavoidable Delay provisions in the Addendum to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The Tribunal found that the builder met the notice and evidentiary requirements of section 5 of the Addendum in setting the new Firm Occupancy Date.

Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to compensation from the guarantee fund for delayed occupancy, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his e-bike under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded because the appellant was driving while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction, finding the e-bike met the definition of a motor vehicle because its pedals were not installed.

The Tribunal then found that the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship, as the appellant had no reasonable alternative transportation to attend his daily, mandatory addiction treatment and mental health appointments, and his low income precluded the use of taxis or ride-shares.

The Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen at the time of the impoundment.

During the hearing, the respondent was satisfied by the appellant's testimony that the vehicle was stolen and agreed to release it.

The Tribunal closed the appeal as the issue was effectively settled.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found his injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant alleged several errors of fact and law, including the Tribunal's assessment of evidence regarding a finger fracture and the standard of proof applied.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the alleged errors of fact were either not errors or would not have changed the result, and that there were no errors of law in the application of the standard of proof or causation tests.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

He argued that his driver's licence was no longer subject to a mandatory ignition interlock device condition at the time of the impoundment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had removed the device from his vehicle before the Ministry of Transportation had processed his Substance Use Assessment and removed the condition from his licence.

As the licence was still subject to the condition when the vehicle was detained, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her 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 son was found in the driver's seat while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had access to Uber, taxis, and public transit, and had not explored other options such as Wheel-Trans or renting a vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by her former boyfriend, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen.

The Tribunal applied the Marshall test and found that the former boyfriend took the vehicle without the appellant's consent and intended to deprive her of it, at least temporarily.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.

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

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as she had expressly prohibited her son from driving it and he had taken her hidden spare keys without consent.

Applying the Marshall test, the Tribunal found the vehicle was taken without consent and with the intent to deprive the owner of it.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding multiple construction defects in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants were disentitled to compensation for several warranty claims because they unreasonably denied the builder access to the home to perform repairs.

The Tribunal also found that the appellants were barred from appealing other claims because they had effectively cancelled the conciliation process for those items.

The appellants' request for costs was denied as there was no evidence of unreasonable conduct by Tarion during the proceeding.