Bruce Stanton

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by the appellant's husband, whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had not demonstrated exceptional hardship because she had access to three other vehicles and had not explored all reasonable alternatives, such as renting a utility van or using a utility trailer.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver's licence was not suspended.

The vehicle was driven by a friend whose licence was suspended for Criminal Code convictions, resulting in a second impoundment within two years.

The Tribunal found that the appellant, having experienced a previous impoundment with the same driver, failed to take reasonable steps to confirm his licence was reinstated.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's friend, whose licence was suspended, was caught driving it.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen because she had expressly prohibited him from driving it and he took the keys without her consent.

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

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

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans and assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed to have suffered a finger fracture and psychological impairments that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the finger fracture was caused by the accident and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no clinically significant psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological assessment, and orthopaedic assessment were denied as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The appellant, who lives in a rural area, claimed she needed the vehicle for her cleaning business and to transport her young daughter and elderly grandmother.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had not demonstrated that there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had not fully explored options such as renting her grandmother's car or coordinating with co-workers.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed the Registrar's decision to downgrade his Class A commercial driver's licence due to his medical condition (ventricular tachycardia requiring an implantable cardioverter defibrillator).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made an error of law or fact under Rule 18.2(b) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant merely disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation of the facts and medical evidence, and failed to establish any error of law or fact that would have resulted in a different decision.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her ex-spouse was caught driving it without an ignition interlock device, which was a condition of his licence.

The appellant argued that she believed the condition had been removed from his licence.

The Tribunal found that while the driver's licence was not suspended, it was subject to the mandatory ignition interlock device condition at the time of the impoundment.

As the vehicle was not equipped with the device, the impoundment was lawful and confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's mother was caught driving it while her licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she is a single mother of two children, one of whom is severely autistic and requires full-time care, and she lives in a small town with limited transportation alternatives.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle and that the impoundment posed a threat to the health and safety of her children.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a friend of her former spouse, whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant exercised due diligence by asking her former spouse about the driver's licence status, observing the driver operating company vehicles, and asking to see his physical licence card, which appeared valid despite being expired.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse to renew its liquor licence.

The Registrar alleged the appellant repeatedly served liquor after hours, failed to clear evidence of service, and exceeded capacity limits.

The Tribunal found the appellant breached the regulations on multiple occasions.

However, considering the establishment's value to the community and recent compliance efforts, the Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal and instead imposed strict conditions on the licence, including security measures and video surveillance.

The appellant, a tow truck operator, appealed a 30-day Suspension and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to an unacceptable safety performance record and high violation rate under its Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR).

The Tribunal found that the Registrar had reason to believe the appellant would not operate its commercial vehicles safely, given its history of collisions, convictions, and failure to respond to previous Ministry interventions.

However, recognizing the appellant's recent engagement of a safety consultant and commitment to a Safety Action Plan, the Tribunal modified the suspension period from 30 days to 21 days.

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 being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship, as there were three other vehicles available to the family and transit options existed.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant sought reconsideration of a decision confirming the impoundment of his vehicle for driving without a required ignition interlock device.

The appellant argued exceptional hardship and lack of awareness of the licence condition.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the appellant failed to establish any error of law or fact, or breach of procedural fairness under Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules 2023.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant also claimed entitlement to an income replacement benefit and several treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating her injuries were beyond minor, or that a pre-existing condition or chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

As the applicant provided no submissions or evidence regarding her inability to work, the claim for an income replacement benefit was dismissed.

Because the $3,500 MIG limit was already exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial Class A driver's licence to a G licence due to a medical condition.

The appellant had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) inserted following episodes of ventricular tachycardia, which had triggered twice since implantation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's precarious cardiovascular condition and the unpredictable nature of his ventricular tachycardia posed a significant risk to public safety if he were to operate commercial vehicles.

The Tribunal confirmed the decision to downgrade the licence.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle after it was driven by an employee whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by checking the driver's licence at the time of hire and submitting an annual list of employee drivers to its auto insurer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that checking the licence only once at hiring and relying on an insurer's annual review without knowing its verification process fell below the standard of reasonable care required to establish due diligence.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant sustained a psychological injury warranting removal from the MIG, preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the insurer's examination assessor due to the former's thoroughness and extensive psychometric testing.

The Tribunal ordered payment of the $2,144.93 treatment plan and interest, but declined to order a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding the respondent's initial denial was not unreasonable or imprudent.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to file financial statements.

Although the appellant eventually filed the statements, the Registrar relied on the appellant's history of non-compliance and breaches of previous conditions.

The Tribunal found that the past conduct of the appellant's sole director afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the revocation of the appellant's registration.

The applicant, a licensed establishment, applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited amplified music on its patio.

The condition had been imposed on the previous owner.

The Tribunal found that a change in circumstances justified removing the condition, noting overwhelming community support for the removal, the establishment's shift to a more upscale dining experience rather than a bar, and the competitive disadvantage of being the only nearby patio with such a restriction.

The application was granted and the condition was ordered removed.

The respondent, Tarion Warranty Corporation, brought a motion to add the builder, John Boddy Developments Ltd., as a party to the appellants' warranty appeal regarding roof shingle deficiencies.

The appellants opposed the motion.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the builder had an interest in the proceeding, it did not rise to the level of a significant interest because its substantive rights, such as defending against indemnification claims, would not be impeded by the Tribunal's decision.

The motion to add the builder as a party was denied.