Jeffery Campbell

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

The parties reached a settlement and consented to an order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the continuation of the appellant's registration subject to extensive conditions, including requirements for trust account reconciliations, financial filings, working capital maintenance, and the provision of a $500,000 letter of credit or security deposit.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim for an unpaved driveway.

The appellants argued that a paved driveway was included in their Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and that receiving a gravel driveway constituted a deficiency or unauthorized substitution.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the APS as a whole and found that the mention of driveway paving in the completion clause did not create an obligation to provide a paved driveway.

The Tribunal concluded there was no deficiency under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and confirmed Tarion's denial of the claim.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Registrar refusing its application for registration as a General Dealer (used) under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties resolved the issues in dispute and consented to the registration subject to specific terms and conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing and ordered the registration to continue on the agreed terms, which included requirements regarding premises, books and records, disclosure, financial responsibility, and a $20,000 letter of credit.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of the appellants as motor vehicle salespersons.

One appellant withdrew his appeal.

The remaining appellant and the Registrar reached an agreement to resolve the issues in dispute.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order approving the appellant's registration subject to specific terms and conditions, including restrictions on his involvement with certain individuals and positions within a dealership.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing degenerative disc disease did not preclude his recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the AMA criteria for chronic pain and lacked evidence of psychological complaints to treating professionals.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the treatment limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 90-day administrative suspension of his driver's licence for refusing to provide a breath sample.

He argued that he was unable to comply with the demand for medical reasons, specifically post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from a violent assault and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) which caused a severe fear of choking.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal accepted the uncontested medical evidence establishing both conditions.

The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's combined conditions rendered him unable to provide a breath sample for medical reasons.

The appeal was allowed and the suspension was set aside.

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

The appellant, a single mother with medical conditions and children with serious medical needs, argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that emergency services were not a reasonable alternative to the vehicle and that its unavailability created a threat to the health and safety of the appellant and her children.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

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

The vehicle was impounded while being driven by a suspended driver.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction, arguing the appellant was not the registered owner at the time of impoundment.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction because the appellant became the registered owner during the impoundment period.

On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship as it had reasonable alternatives to the vehicle and would not suffer an immediate, significant, and long-lasting economic impact.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelled the Appellant's Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate, alleging the Appellant was related to two other companies whose CVORs were previously cancelled for poor safety records.

The Appellant appealed the cancellation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant was indeed related to and controlled by the former CVOR holders, based on unorthodox financial arrangements, shared services, and common management activities.

However, given the Appellant's acceptable safety record during its brief period of operation, the Tribunal varied the Registrar's order, imposing strict conditions on the Appellant's CVOR rather than outright cancellation.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties resolved the issues and consented to the registration subject to specific terms and conditions.

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

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after being driven by an unlicenced driver.

The appellant filed an appeal 33 days late and sought an extension of time.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the extension, finding the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal but was not notified of the impoundment in a timely manner.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the appellant exercised due diligence by asking to see the driver's licence, which appeared valid, before loaning the vehicle.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle ordered released.

The Appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' order cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and vehicle registrations.

The Tribunal found that the safety record and conduct of the Appellant's sole director, which included an alarming increase in his Overall Violation Rate, stunt driving, and operating a tow truck without a certificate due to a weapons prohibition, provided reasonable grounds to believe the Appellant would not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's cancellation order.

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

She filed the appeal two days late and sought an extension of time.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal and the delay was minimal and partly due to police failing to provide the required notice.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The appellant, a single mother on social assistance, had no reasonable alternative transportation and needed the vehicle to access medical treatment and prescriptions for her son's severe dermatitis.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of the appellants as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The appellants appealed the proposal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

Prior to a hearing, the parties resolved the issues in dispute and consented to the appellants' continued registration subject to strict terms and conditions.

Pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing and ordered the registrations confirmed on the agreed terms.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by his wife while her licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because he had no reasonable alternative transportation to his employment, and public transit would cause him to be 30 minutes late each day, risking his job.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative to the vehicle and that the potential loss of employment constituted immediate, significant, and long-lasting hardship.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

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, who was catastrophically impaired following a 2011 motor vehicle accident, sought resolution of a dispute over statutory accident benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to reimbursement for medical records requested by the respondent, as well as the cost of float therapy, preferring the evidence of the treating psychologists over the respondent's paper review.

Regarding attendant care benefits, the Tribunal awarded $975.24 per month, finding that while the applicant required assistance with feeding, hygiene, and basic supervision, his claims for skilled supervisory care to address depression and suicidal ideation were better addressed through psychological treatment.

The Tribunal declined to deem the attendant care expenses incurred or to order a special award, finding the insurer had not acted unreasonably in relying on its assessments.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically alcohol use disorder and a mental health condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant's mental health condition was being treated and did not significantly interfere with his driving, his alcohol use disorder did pose a significant risk.

Relying on medical evidence from the appellant's family physician and the CCMTA standards, the Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence, noting the physician's recommendation for a 4 to 6 month period of abstinence before reinstatement.

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

The vehicle was impounded on the allegation that it was being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal admitted hearsay evidence from both parties and found the appellant's testimony credible that a different, properly licensed individual had driven the vehicle to the scene.

The Tribunal concluded the driver at the time of impoundment was not suspended and ordered the release of the vehicle.

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

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

Prior to a hearing, the parties resolved the issues and consented to the appellant's registration subject to agreed terms and conditions.

Pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing and ordered the registration on the consented terms.