Jeffery Campbell

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

The Registrar based the cancellation on the appellant's safety record, its relationship to another company with a poor safety record, and breaches of previous conditions, including a fleet limitation order and an action plan.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and the other company were related under the Highway Traffic Act and that the appellant had breached its undertakings regarding driver age, vehicle tracking, and fleet size.

The Tribunal concluded there was reason to believe the appellant would not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely and confirmed the Registrar's cancellation order.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar to refuse their registration as a motor vehicle salesperson and motor vehicle dealer.

The parties reached a resolution and consented to the registrations subject to specific terms and conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, ordering the registrations on the agreed terms, which included restricting the corporate appellant to the wholesaler class and restricting the individual appellant to employment with the corporate appellant.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by her ex-husband, whose licence was subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by checking his licence, but admitted she did not check the back of the licence to understand the 'I' condition printed on it.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence and confirmed the impoundment.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by her son, whose licence required an ignition interlock device that the vehicle lacked.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her and her husband's medical conditions and her commute to work.

The Tribunal found that reasonable alternatives to the vehicle existed, such as public transit, ride-sharing, and emergency services, and therefore the exceptional hardship test was not met.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The refusal was initially based on past conduct and false statements in applications.

Prior to a hearing, the parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, ordering the registration of the appellants subject to strict terms and conditions, including restrictions on trading to the public and requirements for financial responsibility.

The appellant travel retailer appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The Registrar sought revocation based on the appellant's repeated failure to file required financial statements and Form 1s in a timely manner, and its failure to comply with previously imposed conditions of registration.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established reasonable grounds to believe the appellant's past conduct and financial position were inconsistent with the Act, and that the appellant had breached its conditions.

However, noting the appellant's 19-year history without consumer complaints and its recent retention of new accountants, the Tribunal concluded that revocation was not necessary for consumer protection.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to revoke, and instead imposed strict conditions regarding future filings and webinar attendance.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries warranted removal from the MIG due to chronic pain syndrome and resulting functional limitations, relying on the family doctor's records and an independent chronic pain assessment.

However, the applicant's claims for income replacement benefits and specific treatment plans were dismissed due to a failure to produce required financial documentation and a lack of objective, contemporaneous medical evidence supporting the treatment plans.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his registration as a real estate broker.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal withdrawn and the registration revoked, subject to the terms of the settlement which permit the appellant to reapply for registration after February 12, 2025, provided his bankruptcy is discharged and his tax debts are settled.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred when she was caught driving while her licence was suspended due to a criminal conviction.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine her licence status, citing confusing advice from legal counsel, Service Ontario, and an ignition interlock company, which led her to mistakenly believe her licence was reinstated after she installed an interlock device and completed a remedial program.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's significant, albeit misguided, efforts to reinstate her licence demonstrated due diligence.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order of its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

The Registrar based the order on the safety records of the appellant and related entities, specifically DGMS Management Services Inc. The Tribunal found that while the appellant's own safety record did not justify cancellation, its relationship with DGMS, which had an unacceptably high violation rate, provided reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate safely.

However, finding the appellant's sole shareholder was unaware of the related entity's restrictions, the Tribunal modified the order to impose conditions severing ties with the related entity and its director, rather than cancelling the CVOR.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days following an incident where a firearm was discharged in the establishment and the appellant's directors failed to notify the police, tampered with evidence, and failed to notify the AGCO of corporate changes.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

However, the Tribunal determined that a 14-day suspension was not the appropriate sanction.

Instead, the Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the suspension and imposed strict conditions on the licence, including mandatory security cameras, surveillance record retention, and immediate reporting of criminal activity.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order refusing its registration as a lottery ticket seller under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The Registrar argued that the past criminal convictions of the appellant's directors, along with their failure to disclose all offences on the application, provided reasonable grounds to believe they would not act with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that while one director had demonstrated significant rehabilitation, the other's recent convictions and the couple's failure to fully disclose their criminal and driving records on the application misled the Registrar.

The Tribunal confirmed the refusal of registration.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits (ACBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had approved the ACBs up to the non-catastrophic limit but required proof that the expenses were 'incurred' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the claimed expenses from a hospital, an air ambulance service, his grandmother, and a retired nurse were incurred or resulted in economic loss.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.

The application for ACBs, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Suspend a Licence for 14 days issued by the Registrar under the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019.

The proposal followed an incident where a firearm was discharged in the appellant's establishment, and the appellant's directors failed to notify the police, tampered with evidence, and failed to notify the AGCO of corporate changes.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

However, the Tribunal determined that a 14-day suspension was not the appropriate sanction and instead directed the Registrar to impose specific conditions on the appellant's licence, including the installation of security cameras and a requirement to immediately report criminal activity.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after it was driven by her daughter, whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not exercise due diligence, as she merely asked if the driver had a licence without verifying it.

However, the Tribunal found that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship because the appellant, a senior living in a rural area, had no reasonable alternative transportation to access recommended medical services.

The appeal was granted and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the 90-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after being driven by a suspended driver.

The Notice of Appeal was filed six days late.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the 15-day period, noting she had prior experience with the appeal process and likely received the impoundment notice.

The Tribunal also found the appeal lacked merit, as the appellant's claim that the vehicle was stolen was unsupported by timely police reports and mirrored a previous impoundment involving the same driver.

The motion for an extension of time was denied and the appeal dismissed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the registration of the appellant as a motor vehicle salesperson and revoke the registration of the corporate appellant as a motor vehicle dealer.

The appellants appealed the proposal.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order continuing the appellants' registrations subject to specific terms and conditions, including compliance with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 and completion of the OMVIC Automotive Certification Course.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it liable to pay income replacement and medical benefits due to insufficient medical reasons in its Notices of Examination (NOEs).

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law by imposing an enhanced standard of specificity for NOEs, by awarding substantive benefits based solely on defective notice, and by allowing the insured to challenge the NOEs after attending the insurer examinations.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the insurer was attempting to relitigate issues already decided and had failed to establish any error of law or breach of procedural fairness under Rule 18.2.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision confirming the suspension of his driver's licence for medical reasons.

The appellant argued that a missing page of medical records and the Tribunal's characterization of a doctor's advice as a 'recommendation' rather than an 'option' constituted grounds for reconsideration under Rules 18.2b and 18.2c.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the missing evidence was in the appellant's possession at the time of the hearing and would not have affected the result, and that the distinction between 'recommendation' and 'option' would not have changed the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the appellant's seizure control.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing injuries, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG, and sought non-earner benefits (NEB) and funding for treatment plans.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical records reporting psychological concerns.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she had successfully continued her education and secured employment.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant remained subject to the MIG.