Bruce Stanton

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

The vehicle was impounded after the driver, who lived with the appellant, was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence in determining the driver's licence status.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had reasonable grounds to believe the licence was valid, as she witnessed the driver pay reinstatement fees at Service Ontario, heard verbal confirmation from Ministry agents, and saw a new licence card arrive in the mail.

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, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after her fiancé was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as public transit, employer accommodations, and assistance from family members.

Because alternatives existed, financial hardship could not be considered.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

He argued he was not subject to an ignition interlock condition and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's licence was subject to the ignition interlock condition at the time of impoundment, as he had not completed the required medical assessment to have it removed.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternative transportation options and failed to demonstrate he had explored every reasonable alternative.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing knee injury and the physical demands of recent childbirth.

The Tribunal found no medical evidence supporting removal from the MIG and concluded her injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs), finding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her self-employment as a housekeeper, as she admitted to performing those tasks in her own home.

Claims for a chiropractic treatment plan and interest were also dismissed.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the impoundment of his vehicle, which was detained after a renter allowed an unauthorized driver with a suspended licence to operate it.

The appeal was filed four days after the 15-day statutory limit.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found that while the delay was short and prejudice to the respondent minimal, the appeal lacked merit.

The vehicle was not stolen, the due diligence defence was unavailable as the appellant did not check the driver's licence, and the exceptional hardship ground was not met because the appellant had alternative transportation.

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

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

The vehicle was impounded after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had an alternative vehicle (her personal truck) which she used during the impoundment period.

Under Ontario Regulation 631/98, financial loss can only be considered if there is no alternative vehicle available.

The appellant sought reimbursement from the Travel Industry Compensation Fund for unredeemed travel vouchers issued by an airline after flights were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the airline subsequently went bankrupt.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that under s. 57(5) of Ontario Regulation 26/05, only unredeemed vouchers issued by a registrant (travel agent or wholesaler) are eligible for reimbursement, not those issued by an end supplier such as an airline.

Furthermore, vouchers issued as a goodwill gesture are excluded under s. 57(3)5.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his General Licence and an Immediate Suspension Order under the Condominium Management Services Act, 2015.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing and an extension of the suspension order on consent to allow parties to prepare.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, extended the suspension order until the conclusion of the hearing, and scheduled a case conference to determine next steps.

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

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as his mother took the keys from his bedroom without his consent.

The Tribunal applied the Marshall test and found that the vehicle was taken without consent and with the intent to deprive the owner of it, satisfying the definition of a stolen vehicle.

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.

At the scheduled hearing, the self-represented appellant was unprepared to proceed, having mistakenly believed the proceeding was a motion for an extension of time rather than a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal found her confusion understandable given recent communications and granted an adjournment on consent to ensure procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her husband's vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal found that under section 50.2 of the Act, only the registered owner of the vehicle has standing to appeal an impoundment.

Because the appellant's name did not appear on the certificate of registration, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

During the teleconference hearing, the appellant remarked that he no longer wished to pursue the matter and abruptly disconnected from the call without explanation.

The adjudicator dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 3.7.2(b) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, which allows the Tribunal to make any appropriate order when a party is unable to attend part of a hearing.

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

The appellant filed an appeal 11 days after the 15-day statutory deadline and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that the appellant had a genuine intention to appeal but was delayed by incorrect instructions from the police.

Finding little prejudice to the respondent and some merit to the appeal, the Tribunal granted the extension of time.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while walking across a pedestrian crosswalk and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain with a functional disability, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed physiotherapy treatment plans and interest on the overdue payments.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act due to a reported alcohol use disorder and cognitive impairment following a hospital visit.

The appellant, a Canadian Armed Forces member, had engaged in a brief period of heavy drinking triggered by depression related to the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan.

On appeal, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the cognitive impairment was no longer at issue and that the appellant had successfully abstained from alcohol for nearly six months.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's alcohol abuse was episodic and that he no longer suffered from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was set aside.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which was seized when his son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence in checking his son's licence status and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to verify the licence reinstatement with the Ministry of Transportation and that the family had reasonable transportation alternatives, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

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 son, whose licence was suspended, was found driving it.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as she had entrusted it to her daughter-in-law, who left the keys with the son to operate the windows.

The Tribunal applied the Marshall test and found the son took the vehicle without the appellant's consent and with the intent to deprive her of it.

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

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 mother was caught driving it while her licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as walking, public transit, and assistance from a friend, and therefore did not meet the threshold for exceptional hardship.

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 with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant, a single mother of three young children with limited financial means, had no viable transportation alternatives.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment posed a threat to the health and safety of the appellant and her children, and would result in financial loss and loss of education.

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, an in-home functional assessment, and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's impairments were a natural progression of pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that the accident aggravated the applicant's pre-existing physical and psychological impairments, making the proposed treatment plans reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for the treatment plans with interest, but declined to order a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664, finding the insurer's initial denial was not unreasonable based on the medical evidence it had at the time.