Jeffery Campbell

The appellant, a paramedic, appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade her Class F driver's licence to a Class G licence due to an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implanted following a cardiac arrest.

The Minister relied on CCMTA standards which state commercial drivers are ineligible for a licence with an ICD.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's risk of sudden incapacitation was very low (less than 1%), she had no recurrences since the implant, and her cardiologists supported her fitness to work.

The Tribunal preferred the Canadian Medical Association directives allowing individual assessment for low-risk patients over the strict CCMTA standards.

The Tribunal set aside the Minister's decision and reinstated the Class F licence.

The appellant's request for costs was denied.

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

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

The applicant failed to provide any written submissions or evidence to the Tribunal despite multiple reminders.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish entitlement to the claimed benefits or removal from the MIG.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its registration as a travel retailer under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, issued due to a failure to submit a financial statement.

The parties resolved the dispute and consented to the continued registration of the appellant subject to conditions, including timely filing of financial statements and responding to requests for information.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing and issued a consent order incorporating the agreed-upon conditions.

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

The parties resolved the issues in dispute and consented to an order continuing the registrations subject to strict terms and conditions.

Pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing and ordered the registrations continued on the agreed terms, which included class restrictions, disclosure obligations, and reporting requirements.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because her daughter, who was recovering from serious injuries, could not attend necessary medical appointments without the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that public transit and ride-sharing were not reasonable alternatives due to medical impact and cost.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment posed a risk to the daughter's health and safety, constituting exceptional hardship, and ordered the release of the vehicle.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence unconvincing and inconsistent with his treating physicians' records, which showed minimal complaints of pain.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's physiatry assessment, concluding the applicant suffered minor sprain/strain injuries.

The applicant was not removed from the MIG and his claims for a chronic pain assessment, physiotherapy, and interest were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which was seized when his son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence to ensure his son's licence was valid before lending the vehicle.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to other vehicles and alternative transportation options for work and medical appointments.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after it was caught being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant, who suffers from serious health issues, had hired the driver to transport her to medical appointments.

Before hiring him, she interviewed him and verified his driver's licence and proof of insurance, both of which appeared valid.

The Tribunal found that the appellant exercised due diligence in attempting to determine the driver's licence status, as she was not required to contact the Ministry of Transportation to look behind a facially valid licence.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its registration as a travel retailer under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, based on allegations of failing to submit financial statements.

The parties resolved the issues and consented to the continued registration of the appellant subject to specific conditions, including the timely filing of financial statements and responses to the Registrar.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing and issued a consent order incorporating the agreed-upon conditions.

The Appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition report indicating severe hypoglycemia.

The Tribunal found that while the Appellant does suffer from severe hypoglycemia, he has re-established glycemic control, uses advanced monitoring technology, and has the support of his medical specialists for early re-licencing.

The Tribunal concluded the condition is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual whose licence required an ignition interlock device, which the vehicle lacked.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship due to her employment and her sister's health issues.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had no alternative transportation, she failed to prove the impoundment would result in a threat to health or safety, or an immediate, significant, and long-lasting financial loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its registration as a travel retailer under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, issued due to its failure to file financial statements and forms.

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 filed an appeal of a vehicle impoundment 31 days after the deadline.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time, finding the delay was caused by a police failure to properly register the impoundment and notify the Ministry.

On the merits, the appellant established that she had loaned the vehicle to the driver for a specific period, after which he refused to return it and ceased communication.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment and ordered its release.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was driven by her mother in violation of an ignition interlock condition.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal and the short delay caused no prejudice.

On the merits, the Tribunal found exceptional hardship because the vehicle was specially modified to accommodate the appellant's disability scooter, there were no viable alternatives, and continued impoundment posed a threat to her health and safety.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle ordered released.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decisions requiring her to complete a driver's re-examination and subsequently cancelling her driver's licence under s. 32(5) of the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The Tribunal found that under s. 50(1) of the Act and O. Reg. 340/94, there is no prescribed right of appeal for decisions made under s. 32(5) to require an examination or under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) to cancel a licence.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the injuries were minor.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, consisting primarily of application forms and self-reported symptoms, insufficient to establish chronic pain or psychological impairment.

Preferring the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were minor and dismissed the claims for treatment plans outside the MIG limit.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish due diligence, as she knew of her husband's prior suspension and took no steps to verify his current licence status.

However, the Tribunal found that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship, as the appellant and her family relied on the vehicle to commute to multiple jobs across different cities, and the lack of reasonable alternatives posed a significant risk of job loss.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically seizure due to alcohol withdrawal and substance use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed medical reports confirming the appellant's history of alcohol use disorder and related seizures.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal found that the appellant's medical conditions were likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred when another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she relied on the vehicle for her self-employed cleaning business.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative to the vehicle for her business and that the resulting financial loss would be immediate, significant, and long-lasting.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

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

The parties reached an agreement and consented to an order under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to dispose of the proceeding without a hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the continuation of the appellants' registrations subject to the terms and conditions set out in the consent agreement, which included financial reporting, lien removal, and maintaining a letter of credit.