Bruce Stanton

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons.

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report from an emergency room physician indicating the appellant suffered from an uncontrolled alcohol use disorder.

The appellant denied having an alcohol dependence and argued the physician misunderstood him.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's oral testimony unconvincing and noted his failure to provide a Substance Use Assessment or other medical evidence to refute the physician's report.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant suffers from an alcohol use disorder that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and confirmed the licence suspension.

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 because her spouse drove it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the impoundment caused stress and inconvenience, the appellant had access to alternative transportation, including a second vehicle, public transit, and support from family.

Therefore, the exceptional hardship threshold was not met.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying entitlement to a neuropsychological assessment, multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessment, and SPECT scan.

The applicant argued procedural unfairness, errors of law and fact, and sought to introduce new evidence.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no procedural unfairness, no errors in weighing the medical and surveillance evidence, and that the applicant failed to explain why the new evidence could not have been obtained prior to the hearing.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after an unauthorized driver, who had borrowed it from a renter on the Turo app, was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed the appeal 20 days after the impoundment, missing the 15-day deadline.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that the justice of the case required an extension, noting the lack of prejudice to the respondent, the merit of the appeal based on due diligence, the appellant's genuine intention to appeal, and the reasonable length of the delay.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically alcohol use disorder and a mental health condition.

The suspension was triggered by a Medical Condition Report submitted by the appellant's family physician following the appellant's grief reaction to his wife's death.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder, he does not suffer from an ongoing mental health condition.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's alcohol dependence is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, noting his 38-year driving record without an impaired driving offence and his responsible habits.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

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 the appellant's roommate was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that she had no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had made arrangements with a friend for transportation and had not inquired into other reasonable options.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans for chiropractic services, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the policy limits were exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her chronic pain and psychological impairments were accident-related or severe enough to warrant removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for treatment plans, a section 10 award, and interest were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his motor vehicle after his son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued under section 50.2(3)(c) of the Highway Traffic Act that he exercised due diligence in attempting to determine if the driver's licence was valid.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant made no inquiry into his son's licence status and therefore failed to demonstrate reasonable care.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her boyfriend was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

She argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship due to her need to transport her children to school and medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had acquired a second vehicle for the duration of the impound period and therefore had an alternative means of transportation, failing the exceptional hardship test.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his 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 was caught driving while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to meet his burden under section 10(4) of O. Reg. 631/98 to demonstrate that he had inquired into and considered every reasonable option for alternative transportation.

Because the appellant had alternatives, the Tribunal could not consider other exceptional hardship criteria, and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for work and family obligations.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as public transit, taxis, and walking, which she was already utilizing.

Because alternatives were available, the appellant failed to meet the burden of proving exceptional hardship under the regulation.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had transportation alternatives available, such as taxis and help from neighbours, which she was already using to meet her employment and family obligations.

Because alternatives were available, the Tribunal could not consider financial costs and dismissed the appeal, confirming the impoundment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including treatment plans for occupational therapy, a chronic pain program, and assessments for neuropsychological, chronic pain, functional cognitive, and catastrophic impairment, as well as a SPECT scan.

The insurer denied the claims.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the proposed plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal relied on insurer examination reports and surveillance evidence showing the applicant engaging in normal activities, which contradicted the applicant's self-reported functional limitations and the opinions of his assessors.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report submitted by a psychiatrist following the appellant's hospital visit for a situational emotional crisis.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's crisis was temporary and situational, and that he does not suffer from an ongoing psychiatric illness or medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for dental, physiotherapy, chiropractic, and massage therapy treatments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the treatments were for pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide any medical evidence to support the claim that the treatments were reasonable and necessary or caused by the accident.

Claims for a section 10 award and interest were also dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons.

The suspension was initiated after her family physician reported she suffered from mild cognitive impairment.

A subsequent functional driving assessment concluded that driving was not recommended due to deficits in functional driving skills.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's cognitive impairment was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The applicant sought a $2,200 psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were minor soft tissue injuries that resolved within months, and that his subsequent pain complaints were related to a second accident and a fall.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's psychological claims, finding his symptoms arose nearly two years post-accident and were likely caused by situational stressors rather than the subject accident.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plan or interest.

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

The respondent insurer determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and limited medical and rehabilitation benefits to $3,500.

The applicant argued that a pre-existing neck condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that the pre-existing condition impeded recovery, preferring the expert opinion of the insurer's examiner over the clinical notes of the applicant's family physician.

The Tribunal held the applicant was subject to the MIG limit but was entitled to partial payment of a physiotherapy treatment plan up to the remaining $84.09 of the limit, plus interest.