Gurleen Thethi

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) as a result of a motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to attendant care benefits and a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the CAT threshold under Criterion 8, as she only demonstrated moderate, rather than marked, impairments in the spheres of functioning.

The claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed because the expenses were not incurred.

However, the Tribunal granted a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding that the respondent unreasonably delayed and withheld payment of income replacement benefits and treatment plans.

The respondent was ordered to pay an award equal to 25% of the delayed benefits.

The appellants sought an extension of time to file their Notices of Appeal from a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registrations under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002.

The Tribunal found that the Notice of Proposal was deemed served by registered mail on February 26, 2026, making the 15-day appeal deadline March 13, 2026.

Because the appellants filed their Notices of Appeal on March 12 and March 13, 2026, the appeals were filed within the prescribed time.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed as unnecessary.

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) and the termination of her income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's experts, noting that the applicant's expert reports were either uncorroborated by contemporaneous medical records or based on limited reviews.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to ongoing IRBs, as she did not demonstrate a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a machine operator, particularly given her subsequent employment at a fast-food restaurant involving similar physical demands.

The application was dismissed.

The Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority brought a motion to determine the procedure for an appeal of an Administrative Penalty Order (APO) issued to the appellant under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The Registrar argued the appeal should proceed on the record rather than as a de novo hearing.

The Tribunal conducted a statutory interpretation of the Act and concluded that the legislative scheme, which includes a robust first-instance process by the assessor, intends for the Tribunal to conduct an appeal on the record.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeal proceed as an appeal on the record.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to transportation needs for work in a rural area.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that no alternative transportation was available, as the appellant had successfully used a rental vehicle and taxis to mitigate the impact.

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 another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, as required by O. Reg. 631/98, noting that public transit remained available despite being inconvenient.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after another driver was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had access to grocery delivery, taxis, rides from a neighbour, and assistance from her housekeeper.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which occurred after another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship, as she relied on the vehicle to commute to her early morning shifts and transport cash for her employer.

The Tribunal found that there were no reasonable alternatives to the vehicle and that its loss would result in immediate, significant, and lasting financial and economic hardship.

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

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant had a previous vehicle impoundment in 2023.

Under section 50.2(4) of the Act, the exceptional hardship ground of appeal is not available to an owner who has had a previous impoundment.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The vehicle was rented through the Turo platform, and the appellant verified the intended renter's licence.

However, the renter's boyfriend drove the vehicle without authorization while his licence was suspended, leading to the impoundment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not exercise due diligence because they took no steps to verify the actual driver's licence, and reliance on the platform's screening process for the intended renter was insufficient.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the exceptional hardship ground was not available to the appellant because the vehicle had been previously impounded under the same section.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove the vehicle was stolen, as her son had access to the keys and no police report was filed.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant's husband had a truck available for essential needs.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's daughter was caught driving it in violation of an ignition interlock condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she relied solely on her daughter's verbal assurances and the physical licence without verifying its status with the Ministry.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to public transit, taxis, and occasional assistance from neighbours.

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

The vehicle was impounded after another driver was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had been able to use taxis, public transit, and occasional rides from friends to attend work and medical appointments.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment (Criterion 8) due to psychological impairments following a motor vehicle accident, as well as entitlement to a treatment plan for optometric services.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had marked impairments in Concentration, Persistence and Pace, and Adaptation, she did not meet the threshold of three marked impairments or one extreme impairment required for catastrophic designation.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for optometric services, preferring the respondent's ophthalmological assessment that found no accident-related ocular sequelae over the applicant's neuro-optometrist report.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The vehicle was impounded after another driver was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had access to and utilized alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, carpooling, and hiring third-party services.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her injuries fell outside the MIG.

The medical evidence, including clinical notes and a psychological pre-screen report, was insufficient to establish chronic pain or a psychological impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the claims for a psychological assessment, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that no alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, as she had been utilizing public transit, ridesharing, and delivery services.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after a driver operated it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship, as the appellant had no alternative vehicles available to fulfill its delivery contracts, and the loss of the vehicle would result in immediate, significant, and lasting financial losses, including the layoff of subcontractors.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.

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

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Registrar submitted that the medical suspension had already expired and requested the appeal be dismissed.

The Tribunal proceeded in the appellant's absence and found that, as the suspension under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act was no longer in effect, the issues in dispute were resolved and closed the file.