Jan Dymond

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to hear his appeal of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to extend an ignition interlock device condition on his driver's licence.

The appellant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the appellant failed to establish any breach of procedural fairness by the Tribunal or any error in its conclusion that the Registrar's decision fell under section 57 of the Highway Traffic Act and was therefore not appealable.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to its carpet installation business.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as required by O. Reg. 631/98, because the business owned a second similar vehicle and was able to maintain operations by using it and having suppliers deliver products.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion requesting an order that its engineer be provided access to inspect the appellants' basement insulation, after the appellants disclosed an expert report.

The appellants opposed the motion.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it lacked the statutory authority under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to order a party to provide access to their home for an inspection or to create a document that does not exist.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed the impoundment of her motor vehicle.

The Tribunal had previously found that the appellant was barred from appealing the impoundment on the grounds of exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(4) of the Highway Traffic Act due to a previous impoundment.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made an error of fact and that new evidence showed the impoundment was not legally authorized because the driver's licence suspension was administrative, not Criminal Code-related.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of fact was made based on the evidence at the original hearing, and that the alleged new evidence could have been obtained previously and would not have altered the outcome.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to file the appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to establish that the vehicle was stolen or that she exercised due diligence, noting she took no steps to prevent the driver from accessing her keys despite a previous similar incident.

The Tribunal also held that the appellant was precluded from claiming exceptional hardship because the vehicle had been previously impounded.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his appeal for removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), treatment plans, and a Non-Earner Benefit (NEB).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law, and breached procedural fairness by failing to consider medical evidence in his document brief.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to point to contemporaneous medical evidence in his initial submissions and that it is not the adjudicator's role to search through unreferenced documents to make a party's case.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a Director's Order imposing a $2,000 administrative monetary penalty for failing to file an accessibility compliance report.

The appeal was filed 21 days after the 15-day statutory deadline.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant, and the appeal lacked merit given the extensive history of ignored notices.

The motion for an extension of time was denied, rendering the request for a stay moot, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove three conditions from its liquor licence relating to a rooftop patio.

The conditions were originally imposed following a public interest hearing.

The appellant argued that circumstances had changed because it abandoned all plans to install a rooftop patio and the premises were constructed without roof access.

The Registrar agreed with the removal.

The Tribunal found that the appellant met its burden to prove a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of the conditions.

The appellant sought to appeal the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal was filed 35 days after the 15-day statutory deadline.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

Applying the four-part test from Manuel, the Tribunal found that while there was some merit to the appeal and the balance of prejudice favoured the appellant, the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the statutory period and the 35-day delay was significant.

The Tribunal concluded that the justice of the case did not support granting an extension.

The motion was denied and the appeal dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to renew its tow operator certificate.

The Director refused the renewal because the appellant submitted an altered Criminal Record and Judicial Matters Record Check (CRJMRC).

The appellant admitted to altering the document to correct a typographical error in the spelling of his first name after failing to get assistance from the police.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant did falsify the document in breach of the regulations, the refusal to renew was disproportionate because the alteration was minor, there was no intent to conceal a criminal record, and a subsequent valid CRJMRC confirmed the appellant had no criminal history.

The Tribunal set aside the Director's decision and ordered the renewal of the certificate.

The appellant purchased a new home that the builder failed to enroll with Tarion.

After discovering the home was eligible for coverage, the appellant submitted a year-end claim form outside the one-year warranty period.

Tarion denied the claim as late.

On appeal, the Tribunal found that while Tarion has the discretion to extend the timeline for submitting a year-end claim under s. 5.10 of O. Reg. 892, the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify an extension.

The Tribunal also held that the Limitations Act, 2002 does not apply to supersede the prescribed timelines in the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence and the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his licence to Class G(Z).

The respondents alleged that the appellant obtained his commercial driver's licence fraudulently through a bribery scheme involving driving examiners, relying on letters from the OPP Serious Fraud Office.

The Tribunal found that the evidence connecting the appellant to the alleged scheme was tenuous, as the letters either did not name the appellant, were dated after the suspension and downgrade decisions, or referenced chat messages that predated the appellant's successful road test by several months.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents failed to establish sufficient reason on a balance of probabilities for either the suspension or the downgrade.

The decisions to suspend and downgrade the licence were set aside.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended for medical reasons.

Over three years later, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles lifted the suspension but required the appellant to re-apply as a novice driver pursuant to s. 29(1) of O. Reg 340/94, as he had been unlicensed for more than three years.

The appellant appealed, seeking reinstatement of his full Class G licence.

The Registrar brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the assignment of a novice licence classification is imposed by law and does not constitute an appealable decision under s. 50.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellants filed an appeal from a Fleet Limitation Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles and brought a motion seeking a stay of the order pending the hearing.

Neither party filed submissions on the motion, but the respondent advised that a stay was already in effect by operation of law.

The Tribunal agreed, noting that under s. 25 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, an appeal acts as a stay unless the enabling statute provides otherwise.

Because the Highway Traffic Act is silent on stays of fleet limitation orders, the order was automatically stayed.

The motion for a stay was therefore denied as moot.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to recall and cancel her personalized licence plate under s. 12(2) of the Highway Traffic Act for containing or implying political opinions.

The Registrar brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Act does not assign it authority to hear appeals of decisions made under s. 12(2), as its jurisdiction is limited to specific sections that do not include s. 12.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the impoundment of its motor vehicle.

In the original decision, the Tribunal found the appellant was barred from appealing on the ground of exceptional hardship due to two previous vehicle impoundments.

On reconsideration, the Registrar conceded that the Tribunal had incorrectly attributed the ownership of the previously impounded vehicles to the appellant.

The Vice-Chair found this constituted a material error of fact that likely affected the outcome.

The reconsideration was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's denial of treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, as well as claiming an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for physiotherapy, accepting the insurer's medical examination which found no ongoing physical injuries.

The Tribunal also dismissed two psychotherapy treatment plans because the applicant failed to justify rates exceeding the Professional Services Guideline and session lengths beyond one hour.

However, the Tribunal partially approved a third psychological treatment plan, preferring the treating clinic's recent progress report over the insurer's assessment, but reduced the quantum to align with Guideline rates and one-hour sessions.

The claim for a special award was dismissed due to lack of evidence of unreasonable delay.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after his son's friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional financial hardship to himself and possible loss of employment for his son.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish that no alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, as he had access to another vehicle and there was no evidence his son could not find alternative transportation.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under 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 Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she had access to rides from friends and family, and could potentially use her father's vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle salesperson and dealer.

The parties reached an agreement and requested a consent order without a hearing, which the Tribunal denied, citing the statutory requirement to hold a hearing under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

Following a hearing on the agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal ordered the jointly proposed conditions, with the exception of one condition deemed unenforceable, to address the appellants' past conduct failures including failure to produce records and trading out of class.