Dagmara Szczudlo

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial cargo van, which was seized when an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen by the employee and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to its business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the hearsay evidence insufficient to prove the vehicle was taken without consent, and concluding the business had access to alternative vehicles, thereby failing the test for exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her fiancé's son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was taken without her consent while she was away for the weekend.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence credible, concluding the vehicle was taken without authorization and the driver intended to temporarily deprive her of its use.

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

The applicant was a pedestrian struck by a vehicle and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the burden of proving a psychological injury or chronic pain with functional impairment, noting the lack of formal diagnoses and unchanged pain management post-accident.

The Tribunal also denied the claim for attendant care benefits, preferring the respondent's medical evidence that the applicant was independent in mobility and personal care.

All claims were dismissed.

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 brother was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the loss of the vehicle caused financial hardship and impacted her ability to transport her elderly mother to medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she and her mother had access to public transit in Toronto.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as the appellant continued to work and travel using public transit and ride-sharing services.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his Talaria Sting electric motorcycle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

He argued that he did not have a driver's licence to suspend and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Talaria Sting met the definition of a motor vehicle, that the appellant's driving privileges were suspended due to a prior conviction, and that he failed to establish exceptional hardship because public transit was available as an alternative.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded because the driver was operating it while his licence was subject to an ignition interlock condition, and the vehicle was not equipped with such a device.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence in determining the driver's licence status and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to establish due diligence, noting she was aware of the driver's prior conviction and should have made further inquiries.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to public transit and could borrow a family member's car.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the denial of their two-year warranty and major structural defect (MSD) claims by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding their newly constructed home.

The Tribunal found a breach of the two-year warranty due to water penetration in the garage caused by deficient lot grading and insufficient waterproofing, ordering the respondent to perform specific repairs.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the MSD claim, finding the appellants failed to prove that high humidity, a foundation crack, and sediment in the weeping tiles resulted in the failure of a structural load-bearing element or materially affected the use of the home.

A preliminary motion by the appellants to anonymize the decision was also denied.

The applicant was a pedestrian struck by a car, sustaining complex polytrauma.

He sought payment for the unapproved balance of a treatment plan for case management services provided by a registered social worker.

The respondent had partially approved the services at a lower hourly rate.

The Tribunal found that the proposed higher rate was appropriate based on the provider's education, training, and experience, and noted the respondent had recently approved the same provider at the higher rate for another client.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the unapproved balance.

The applicant sought post-104 income replacement benefits and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a low-speed motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical, psychological, and pain complaints did not render her completely unable to engage in employment for which she is reasonably suited, such as customer service or hairstyling.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors and contemporaneous medical records over the applicant's experts.

The treatment plan was denied as past similar treatments had not been effective.

The application was dismissed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after an employee was caught driving it without a mandatory ignition interlock device.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment, as the employee took it without authorization outside of work hours for personal use, contrary to company policy.

The Tribunal found that the employee intended to temporarily deprive the appellant of the vehicle, satisfying the definition of 'stolen' under the Act.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to post-104 income replacement benefits and certain treatment plans.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness by allowing the respondent's experts to testify without producing clinical notes and records, and by denying her the opportunity to cross-examine an adjuster.

The applicant also alleged errors of law and fact regarding the weighing of medical and vocational evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the adjuster was not summoned or listed as a witness, and concluding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the weighing of evidence without demonstrating any actual errors of law or fact.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to pre-104 and post-104 income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment for the pre-104 period.

Furthermore, the applicant did not provide compelling medical evidence to establish a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment for the post-104 period.

The application for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer suspended the IRB based on section 44 assessments but reinstated the benefits just five days before the hearing, after a 686-day delay.

The sole issue at the hearing was whether the respondent was liable for an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 for unreasonably withholding or delaying payments.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to adjust the file as new information became available, specifically section 25 rebuttal reports, and that its conduct was inflexible.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a 25 per cent award on the total IRB payable during the delay period.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the applicant's claim for post-104 income replacement benefits, finding she did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, noting her post-accident work in creative fields and non-accident-related psychiatric conditions.

The Tribunal also denied claims for a catastrophic impairment assessment balance, physiotherapy, costs, and an award.

However, the Tribunal granted entitlement to a passenger/driver assessment, finding the applicant's driving anxiety was well-documented and a valid driver's license was not a prerequisite for the assessment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological services following a fatal motor vehicle accident involving her spouse.

The respondent insurer partially denied two treatment plans, disputing the proposed hourly rate for a psychotherapist and preparation fees.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the higher hourly rate was reasonable and necessary, as the provider was not a psychologist and there was insufficient evidence to justify exceeding the FSCO Guideline rate for unregulated providers.

The Tribunal awarded $50.39 for documentation fees but dismissed the remainder of the claims, including the request for a special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-accident role as a religious school organizer was administrative and his soft tissue injuries did not cause a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks, denying the IRB claim.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to prove a pre-existing condition or chronic pain syndrome with functional impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was limited to the $3,500 MIG treatment cap.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, claiming a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 due to mental and behavioural disorders following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's self-reporting was inconsistent and unreliable.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not suffer from a marked impairment in three functional domains (activities of daily living, social functioning, and adaptation) and therefore did not meet the definition of a catastrophic impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to enforce a settlement agreement allegedly reached with the respondent insurer regarding her statutory accident benefits claim.

The parties had negotiated an agreement in principle via email, but the applicant refused to sign a release that included the tortfeasor (Ryder).

The Tribunal found that a mutually agreeable release was an essential term of the settlement.

Because the applicant amended the settlement disclosure notice without agreement and did not execute the required release, no binding and enforceable settlement agreement was reached.

The application to enforce the settlement was dismissed.

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

The applicant claimed physical injuries including whiplash and soft tissue sprains, as well as psychological impairments such as an adjustment disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were captured by the minor injury definition and that he failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant was held to the $3,500 MIG limit and denied the disputed treatment plans beyond that cap, though he was awarded interest on any overdue payments within the limit.