Hande Bilhan

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to Refuse to Issue a Licence as a Horseperson under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015.

The Registrar refused the licence because the appellant had been convicted of sexual assault on three occasions involving women he employed in his horse racing work.

The Tribunal found that there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act with honesty, integrity, and in compliance with the law, given his repeated criminal conduct while previously licenced.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to refuse the licence and also ordered a publication ban on the criminal records to align with a Criminal Code ban.

The applicant, who suffered a catastrophic impairment in a 2007 motor vehicle accident, sought funding for a recreational vehicle ($226,200), home modifications including backyard cement work and pool upgrades ($14,443.65), and business class air tickets ($8,239.84) to facilitate travel and family engagement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that none of the requested expenses were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal relied on medical evidence indicating that the applicant's physical and psychological limitations would prevent her from safely and effectively utilizing the RV, the proposed backyard modifications, or the business class flights to achieve the stated rehabilitation goals.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle after his friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by asking to see the driver's licence, which the driver presented in a see-through wallet sleeve showing a photo and expiry date.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible and concluded that he took reasonable care under the circumstances, as most reasonable people would not know to check the Ministry's online database.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act after her husband was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had given implied consent by leaving the vehicle and key accessible to her husband despite his driving history.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as reasonable transportation alternatives like public transit and ride-sharing were available.

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

The vehicle was impounded after a police officer determined the appellant was driving while his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant exercised due diligence in attempting to determine his licence status, as he had received a new licence without a suspension noted and had multiple interactions with the Ministry of Transportation that did not indicate a suspension.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after she was caught driving without an Ignition Interlock Device (IID).

The Tribunal first granted an extension of time to file the appeal, finding the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal and was delayed by confusion over the process.

On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish her licence was not subject to the IID condition at the time of the stop.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship argument, as the regulation precludes considering hardship that only impacts the suspended driver.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's daughter was stopped for speeding while driving it, as her licence was subject to an Ignition Interlock Device condition.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove the condition had been removed from his daughter's licence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the impoundment would not result in exceptional hardship, as the appellant had rented a vehicle for his work and thus had reasonable alternative transportation.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to a concussion diagnosis and ongoing pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG, noting normal diagnostic imaging, lack of contemporaneous concussion diagnosis by her family physician, and late-filed medical evidence that could not be properly assessed by the respondent.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, denying the disputed treatment plan for chiropractic services and interest.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The applicant passed away intestate before the Tribunal application was filed by his counsel.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as no Estate Trustee had been appointed to instruct counsel or commence the proceeding.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that without a legally recognized representative, counsel had no authority to file the application.

The application was dismissed as it was not properly commenced.

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

The respondent denied the benefits and argued the applicant was statute-barred from claiming $3,981.88 for psychological services due to her failure to attend a scheduled insurer's examination.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the applicant failed to attend the examination without a reasonable excuse.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claims for $640.00 in transportation and progress report costs from two other treatment plans, finding she failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son was caught driving it while his license was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as her son took it without her consent while she was at work.

Applying the Marshall test, the Tribunal found the vehicle was taken without consent and with the intent to deprive the owner of it temporarily.

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

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, as there was insufficient medical evidence of chronic pain, psychological impairment, or a pre-existing condition that would preclude recovery within the MIG limits.

Consequently, the claims for medical assessments, physiotherapy, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her ex-son-in-law was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she works night shifts in a rural area with no public transit, cannot afford taxis, and is the primary caregiver for her elderly mother who recently had cardiac surgery.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative transportation and that the impoundment posed a threat to the health and safety of her mother, as well as causing immediate and significant financial loss.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $2,103.34 for a physiotherapy treatment plan under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting that previous treatments had not achieved their goals and the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was awarded.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to attend the videoconference hearing or file any evidence.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application as abandoned and sought costs.

The Tribunal denied the motion to dismiss as abandoned, opting to proceed on the merits.

Because the applicant provided no evidence, the Tribunal found he failed to meet his evidentiary burden and dismissed the claims for benefits.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request for costs, finding that the applicant's failure to attend did not amount to unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious conduct warranting a costs award.

The appellant rental car company appealed the 180-day impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after a renter was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had other vehicles available for rent and therefore failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, a prerequisite for proving exceptional hardship.

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

The vehicle was impounded because the appellant was driving without a required ignition interlock device.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable transportation alternatives, such as assistance from his brother and friends, and therefore failed to meet the threshold test for exceptional hardship.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits totaling $10,161.36 for goods and services, including an adjustable bed, massage chair, and moving costs, following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that while the applicant had been removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and suffered from chronic pain, the requested items were not reasonable and necessary.

The evidence showed the applicant already possessed similar items in good condition, and the requested items were not recommended by his chronic pain specialist.

The application was dismissed, along with claims for interest and an award.