D. Gregory Flude

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment determination and submitted medical reports.

The respondent's assessors concluded she did not meet the criteria.

The applicant then submitted addendum reports.

The respondent brought a motion to allow its assessors to prepare responding addendum reports without the applicant's consent, arguing the applicant's addenda contained new opinions and comments.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant's addendum reports merely reaffirmed their original positions and did not raise new issues that would justify further examinations under section 44 of the Schedule.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar refused registration on the grounds that the appellant made a false statement in his application regarding a past sexual assault conviction and that his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly provided an exculpatory and false explanation of his conviction, minimizing his behaviour and casting himself as the victim.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal and refuse the registration.

The appellant appealed a 14-day suspension of its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to a poor safety record and recent significant safety events, including two wheel separations and a serious multi-vehicle accident.

The appellant argued its violation rate was below the threshold for suspension and that certain incidents should not be recorded.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's safety record provided reasonable grounds to believe it would not operate safely, rejecting the appellant's interpretation that towed 'devices' were exempt from the CVOR record.

The Tribunal confirmed the 14-day suspension as an appropriate sanction.

The appellant applied for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson and dealer.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the registrations on the grounds that the appellant made false statements regarding outstanding collection actions and failed to provide requested financial and corporate information.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant did not make a false statement, as he was unaware of the minor collection actions.

However, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to comply with the Registrar's reasonable requests for information under s. 6(1.1) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

Rather than refusing the registrations outright, the Tribunal deferred its final decision to allow the appellant six weeks to provide the requested information or withdraw his applications.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for a determination of catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident, without claiming any specific substantive benefits.

The respondent insurer argued that under s. 280(1) of the Insurance Act, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear a stand-alone catastrophic impairment dispute.

A preliminary issue hearing found the Tribunal had jurisdiction, and the respondent sought reconsideration.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no significant error of law in the preliminary decision.

The Vice-Chair held that s. 280(1) grants broad jurisdiction over disputes respecting entitlement to statutory accident benefits, which includes determinations of catastrophic impairment.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar sought refusal on two grounds: the appellant's past criminal convictions for sexual offences involving minors, and a false statement on his application regarding past professional disciplinary action.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had sufficiently rehabilitated himself regarding his past criminal conduct.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant, a highly educated former teacher, knowingly made a false statement on his application by failing to disclose that his teaching certificate had been revoked.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant failed to appear at the teleconference hearing despite being sent notice and contacted by the case management officer.

As the appellant bore the onus of proving exceptional hardship and led no evidence, the tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment order.

The 82-year-old appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence following a stroke.

Medical reports indicated cognitive impairment, and the appellant subsequently failed a functional driving assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's cognitive impairment significantly interfered with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the Registrar's suspension, agreeing that evidence of improved cognitive function and a successful driving assessment were required before reinstatement.

The appellant, a commercial driver, appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence on medical grounds following a single-vehicle accident.

Medical reports indicated the appellant was alcohol dependent and had a blood alcohol level over three times the legal limit at the time of the crash.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant is alcohol dependent and that this dependency is likely to interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence, noting that while the appellant had completed a rehabilitation program, his doctor had not yet recommended reinstatement.

The appellant, a commercial driver, had his class 'A' licence downgraded to a class 'G' licence by the Minister of Transportation after suffering a single seizure.

The Minister applied the five-year seizure-free standard for epilepsy under the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's single provoked seizure, caused by scar tissue from a previous stroke, did not meet the definition of epilepsy.

As the appellant's condition had stabilized with medication and he had been seizure-free for over a year, the Tribunal concluded the Minister was not justified in downgrading the licence and set aside the decision.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her husband was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant rented a replacement vehicle during the impoundment period, which caused financial strain.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that because the appellant had an alternative vehicle available, she did not meet the threshold requirement for exceptional hardship under section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of Trustees of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund denying his claim for $23,000.

The appellant had paid a registered car dealer for a vehicle, but the dealer failed to deliver it, transferred it to a third party, and subsequently declared bankruptcy.

The appellant paid the third party $23,000 to recover the vehicle and sought compensation from the Fund.

The Tribunal found that the purchase was a consumer transaction and that the appellant's loss flowed directly from his payment to the bankrupt dealer.

The appeal was allowed, and the Board was directed to pay the appellant $23,000 from the Fund.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence for 14 days due to overcrowding.

The appellant admitted to the overcrowding, which was a second offence, but requested a monetary penalty instead of a suspension.

The Tribunal found that a monetary penalty was inappropriate given the previous failure to deter the behaviour.

Balancing general deterrence, specific deterrence, and rehabilitation, the Tribunal ordered a 5-day licence suspension, to include the first Friday of a month, rather than the 10 to 12 days sought by the Registrar.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son lent it to a friend whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was needed to transport his wife to medical appointments for cancer and stroke recovery.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as the son and others were able to provide transportation, albeit with inconvenience.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not meet the requirement of having no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as he had successfully rented replacement vehicles for his contracting business.

The appellants appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles that terminated their right to operate trucks on Ontario highways due to a poor safety record.

The Tribunal confirmed the Order with respect to Great Lakes Offshore Services Inc., finding reasonable grounds to believe it would not operate commercial motor vehicles safely despite recent remedial efforts.

However, the Tribunal set aside the Order with respect to the Registration Identification Numbers (RIN) of Darrin Smith and Hoover's Marina Limited, finding no statutory authority in the Highway Traffic Act to cancel a RIN.

The appellant applied under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act to remove conditions on its liquor licence, arguing a change in circumstances.

The conditions, which required security personnel and compliance with a 2002 settlement with the City of Mississauga, were originally imposed following public objections.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances, noting the premises are in an industrial area, there was a change in ownership and business model, and no public objections were received after notice was posted.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the conditions.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a premises operating as Rebel and Cabana Pool Bar, seeking increased capacity and fewer restrictions than the previous licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the Application, and several community groups objected, primarily citing noise disturbances from the outdoor patio.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the indoor capacity increase was in the public interest, the outdoor capacity increase and the playing of amplified music outdoors were not, due to the significant noise impact on the Toronto Island community.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to strict conditions, including a prohibition on amplified music directed towards any outdoor area and a reduced outdoor capacity.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents and sought statutory accident benefits.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the applicant signed a full and final release and a settlement disclosure notice.

The applicant subsequently filed a second application seeking payment of a disputed treatment plan, arguing it was not included in the settlement.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the application.

The Tribunal found that the settlement agreement was valid, full, and final, and explicitly included the disputed treatment plan amount.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, a commercial trucking company, appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to its poor safety record.

The appellant argued that it had implemented a safety action plan and its violation rate was improving.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's safety record was abysmal, placing it among the worst operators in Ontario, and that its reported mileage was inflated, masking its true violation rate.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate safely and confirmed the Cancellation and Seizure Order.