Jeanie Theoharis

The appellant appealed a 90-day driver's licence suspension imposed after an officer believed his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent reviewed the circumstances and concluded that the appellant had a combination of medical conditions that likely affected his ability to perform the mechanical tasks required during the assessment.

The respondent consented to the appeal, and the Tribunal ordered the suspension set aside.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove a condition on its liquor licence requiring two security personnel on Friday and Saturday nights.

The applicant argued that a 70% decrease in business volume over the past five years and a declining local population constituted a change in circumstances.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario took no position.

The Tribunal found that the change in circumstances warranted the removal of the condition and granted the application.

The appellant requested a hearing regarding the Registrar's proposal to revoke and immediately suspend its Transfer Service Operator – Class 1 licence.

At a teleconference hearing, the parties agreed to adjourn the matter to allow for document exchange and a case conference.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered that the immediate suspension of the appellant's licence be extended until the conclusion of the hearing, pursuant to section 19(3)(b) of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002.

Procedural directions and dates for the continuation of the hearing were also set.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal reviewed the applicant's pre-accident life, noting significant pre-existing health conditions and mobility restrictions.

The Tribunal found that post-accident, the applicant continued to engage in substantially all of the activities she ordinarily engaged in before the accident, such as household chores, shopping, and family vacations, albeit with some modifications and assistance.

Consequently, the application for non-earner benefits was dismissed.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended indefinitely following three impaired driving convictions.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles later reinstated the licence subject to a permanent ignition interlock condition.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove the condition.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the permanent ignition interlock condition was imposed by operation of law under s. 41.2(9) of the Highway Traffic Act, not as a discretionary downgrade, and therefore could not be appealed to or removed by the Tribunal.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son allowed a friend with a suspended licence to drive it.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the vehicle was not stolen because the appellant had given her son consent to use it.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the appellant had access to an alternative vehicle.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for attendant care services allegedly provided by a personal support worker following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the services were not actually provided during the disputed period.

The Tribunal found the evidence of the applicant, her son, and the personal support worker to be inconsistent and unreliable, particularly when contrasted with hospital records showing the applicant's daughter provided the care.

The application for attendant care benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which the respondent insurer denied.

The adjudicator first determined that the applicant's shoulder and back injuries were caused by the accident, rejecting the insurer's argument that they were pre-existing.

The adjudicator then reviewed six disputed treatment plans.

Five plans for chiropractic, physiotherapy, dental splints, and active release treatment were found to be reasonable and necessary to treat the applicant's ongoing pain and impairments.

However, a treatment plan for extensive psychological services was deemed excessive, with the adjudicator preferring the insurer's psychological assessment that limited sessions were sufficient.

The applicant was awarded the approved treatment plans along with interest on the overdue amounts.

The Applicant sought income replacement benefits, medical benefits, and the cost of assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Respondent denied the benefits, arguing the Applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment and that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found no procedural errors in the Respondent's denial of benefits.

Relying on video surveillance that contradicted the Applicant's self-reported limitations, the Tribunal found the Applicant's evidence unreliable and concluded she was not eligible for income replacement benefits.

Furthermore, the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries fell outside the MIG.

As the Applicant had already received the maximum $3,500 in medical benefits under the MIG, the claims for additional treatment and assessments were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and subsequently suffered a heart attack.

He applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for a medical benefit of $1,160.50 for assistive devices recommended by his chiropractor.

The insurer denied the treatment plan, arguing the devices were for the heart attack rather than the accidents.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary to treat the applicant's accident-related impairments, noting the devices would assist his recovery while accommodating his heart condition.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the medical benefit and interest.

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 Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries were minor, her psychological impairments, including depression and anxiety, placed her outside the MIG.

The Tribunal denied five treatment plans for facility-based physical rehabilitation, finding the applicant had reached maximal recovery for her physical injuries.

However, the Tribunal approved the cost of a social work assessment up to the $2,000 statutory limit, finding it reasonable and necessary to address her ongoing psychological impairments.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $2,233.46 for chiropractic treatment and massage therapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurance company denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended they suffered from cervical radiculopathy, which falls outside the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving their injuries fell outside the MIG, as their medical evidence lacked sufficient objective testing and persuasive analysis to support a diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy.

The Tribunal preferred the insurance company's medical assessment, which diagnosed a whiplash injury.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application for dispute resolution regarding statutory accident benefits and brought a motion to waive the $100.00 processing fee.

The applicant relied on a Fee Waiver Certificate issued in a Small Claims Court proceeding under the Administration of Justice Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the motion, finding that it is not bound by the Administration of Justice Act and that the applicant failed to provide a sufficient factual basis to warrant a fee waiver.