Jeffery Campbell

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized while she was driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in her absence and found she failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she exercised due diligence in determining her licence status, or that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship, as she provided no evidence regarding alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

The impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized when driven by a suspended driver.

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her and her husband's medical conditions and mobility issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that reasonable alternative transportation options were available, including her husband's vehicle, ride-sharing services, public transit, and assistance from friends.

As alternatives existed, the test for exceptional hardship under the Highway Traffic Act was not met.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle after it was stopped while being driven by a co-worker whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence because the co-worker had passed a background check at their shared workplace, which included a driver's licence check, and the co-worker regularly drove vehicles for their employer.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's assumption that the co-worker had a valid licence was reasonable under the circumstances.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its rental vehicle after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

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

The Tribunal denied the motion to extend the time to appeal, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, prejudice to the respondent, and no merit to the appeal grounds of due diligence or exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed as out of time.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being stopped by police while driven by the appellant, whose licence was suspended due to a criminal conviction.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship due to impound fees and transportation needs for work.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the vehicle, including ride-sharing and public transit, and therefore failed to meet the test for exceptional hardship.

The impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons.

Prior to the hearing, the Registrar reinstated the licence, but due to an administrative oversight, the Tribunal did not close the file and the parties attended the scheduled hearing.

The appellant sought to have the suspension overturned and removed from her record.

The Tribunal held that it no longer had jurisdiction over the appeal because the licence had been reinstated, and it lacked the authority to alter Ministry of Transportation records or back-date the reinstatement.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson based on past conduct.

The parties resolved the dispute and consented to an order maintaining the registration subject to strict terms and conditions, including restrictions on acting as a manager or final signatory, and reporting requirements regarding pending criminal charges.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing and issued the consent order.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual whose licence required an ignition interlock device, which the vehicle lacked.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she had no reasonable alternative transportation to her employment as a Personal Support Worker, and relying on her mother for a 1.5-hour commute was unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that there was no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle and that the impoundment would likely result in an immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss or loss of employment.

The appeal was granted and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed an administrative penalty order of $16,476,838.54 issued by the Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority regarding price increases for a new home project.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the appeal without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, requiring the appellant to pay an administrative penalty of $6,415,100, which includes providing credits to purchasers who accepted price increases and foregoing price increases for undecided purchasers.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim regarding the fuel supply to his new home.

The appellant argued that the builder agreed to provide natural gas but instead supplied propane and converted the natural gas furnace to accommodate propane.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the provision of fuel services falls outside the statutory warranty under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Furthermore, the conversion of the furnace did not constitute a warrantable substitution because the furnace provided was the exact model agreed upon in the purchase agreement.

The appellant appealed a 90-day driver's licence suspension imposed under section 48.3 of the Highway Traffic Act for refusing to provide a breath sample.

The appellant argued under section 50.1(2)(a)(ii) that he was unable to comply with the demand due to a medical reason, specifically hypertension exacerbated by stress.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant likely had high blood pressure at the time, the evidence did not establish that his symptoms were severe enough to render him medically unable to comply with the demand.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized when driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because she required the vehicle for her employment delivering wine and spirits, and had no reasonable alternatives.

The Tribunal found that public transit and ride-sharing were not viable or affordable alternatives for her work duties, and that continued impoundment would likely result in loss of employment.

The appeal was granted and the vehicle ordered released.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration issued by the Registrar under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, for failing to submit a financial statement.

The parties resolved the issues and consented to the continued registration of the appellant subject to conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing and ordered the registration continued on the agreed terms.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his commercial vehicle 10 days after the statutory appeal period expired.

He brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal, arguing exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that while the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal and the delay was reasonably justified by a systemic failure in notification, the appeal lacked merit.

The Tribunal found the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle and would not suffer immediate, significant, and long-lasting financial loss.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle, which was stopped while being driven by a driver with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because the vehicle was a customized maintenance truck with no reasonable alternative, and its absence could lead to equipment breakdowns, project delays, and financial penalties.

The Tribunal found that while there was no reasonable alternative to the vehicle, the appellant failed to prove that the impoundment would result in a threat to public health and safety or cause immediate, significant, and long-lasting financial loss.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after it was stopped while being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as she did not properly review the driver's licence renewal document or check his licence status.

The Tribunal also found that the impoundment would not result in exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to reasonable transportation alternatives, including her son's vehicle and assistance from friends.

The impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant applied for a liquor sales licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the application based on the criminal record and provincial offences of the appellant's sole officer and shareholder.

The Tribunal found that the officer's repeated pattern of behaviour, which included recent convictions for assault and breaching a release order, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

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

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse to renew its payday lender licence under the Payday Loans Act, 2008.

The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's failure to provide requested information and failure to maintain a required bank account.

At the hearing, the appellant admitted to the facts.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's continued non-responsiveness and failure to provide vital banking documentation demonstrated that conditions would not adequately ensure consumer protection.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse to renew the licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized while being driven by her son, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was taken without her consent and was therefore stolen.

The Tribunal found that while the vehicle was taken without consent, the appellant failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent her son from accessing the keys and did not believe he intended to deprive her of the vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was not stolen and confirmed the impoundment order.

The applicant sought entitlement to a $2,416.63 treatment plan for chiropractic services, interest, and an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence addressing the reasonableness and necessity of the proposed chiropractic treatment, relying instead on evidence of his psychological condition.

The respondent's medical assessment concluded the applicant no longer suffered from an accident-related musculoskeletal diagnosis.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the treatment plan was not reasonable or necessary, and denied the claims for interest and an award.