Jeffery Campbell

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a travel agent under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, alleging a failure to submit financial statements.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

Prior to a hearing, the parties resolved the dispute and consented to the continued registration of the appellant subject to strict conditions, including timely filing of financial statements and prompt responses to the Registrar's requests.

The Tribunal issued a consent order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant, who suffered catastrophic injuries in a 2011 motor vehicle accident, sought attendant care benefits of $2,202.51 per month and non-earner benefits of $320 per week.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant continues to require some attendant care for basic supervisory care, coordination, and hygiene, his needs were reasonably assessed at $445.50 per month.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding that the applicant had made significant progress, including living independently, marrying, and purchasing a home, and therefore did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

A claim for a special award was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue attendant care benefits.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for a Liquor Licence after the Registrar received 51 community objections.

The parties reached a settlement agreement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to approve the licence subject to conditions restricting service hours, limiting patio capacity to 15 persons, and prohibiting amplified sound on the patio.

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

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

During the hearing, the Registrar advised it would release the vehicle.

The Tribunal closed the file.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by her husband, who had a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to financial difficulties and inability to travel for work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to alternative transportation (ride-sharing and public transit), which precluded the consideration of financial hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson based on past conduct.

The appellant had previously been refused registration in 2020 due to dishonest conduct in vehicle transactions.

The Tribunal found that the appellant presented new evidence of his recent licensing in the financial services industry and re-enlistment in the Canadian Armed Forces, allowing him to reapply.

While the Tribunal agreed with the Registrar that the appellant's past conduct provided reasonable grounds for belief that he might not carry on business with honesty and integrity, it found that his subsequent conduct and remorse demonstrated that comprehensive conditions would adequately protect the public interest.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to register the appellant subject to strict conditions, including educational requirements and a prohibition on acting as a person-in-charge.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 to revoke its registration as a travel agent for failing to submit financial statements.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar not to carry out the proposal and to maintain the appellant's registration subject to conditions, including timely filing of financial statements and completion of educational webinars.

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

At the hearing, the agent for the Registrar advised that the Ministry of Transportation agreed to release the vehicle and pay the outstanding impound fees.

The Tribunal closed the file.

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

The Registrar suspended the licence based on medical reports from the appellant's family physician indicating diagnoses of mild dementia and spinal stenosis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence established the conditions were likely to significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the suspension, noting the appellant must successfully complete a functional driving assessment before reinstatement.

The applicant brought a motion to extend the time to file an appeal of a 45-day vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal was filed 49 days late.

At the hearing, the Registrar consented to the extension after it was noted that the police failed to provide the applicant with appeal procedure information or notify the Registrar of the impoundment.

The Tribunal granted the extension and scheduled the appeal for a hearing on the merits regarding whether the owner exercised due diligence.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons following a single-vehicle accident.

The Registrar suspended the licence based on a Medical Condition Report diagnosing the appellant with syncope/recurrent episodes.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from syncope and that the condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, a special award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal applied the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life, comparing the applicant's pre- and post-accident activities.

Despite some reported pain and adjustments to her routine, the Tribunal found the applicant was still capable of performing most of her pre-accident activities, including working, studying, and personal care.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and dismissed the application for the non-earner benefit, the special award, and interest.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons after his family physician reported a substance use disorder involving cocaine.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant had a substance use disorder, the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

The Tribunal noted a lack of medical evidence regarding the specific effects of the appellant's cocaine use on his driving ability and set aside the licence suspension.

The applicant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days for driving while under suspension.

The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal 25 days late, citing exceptional hardship, and brought a motion to extend the time for filing.

At the motion hearing, the respondent consented to the extension.

The Tribunal granted the motion and extended the filing period, allowing the appeal to proceed to a Case Conference.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar to suspend his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the Notice of Proposal, suspending the appellant's registration for three months starting December 14, 2022.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her Class DZ commercial driver's licence due to a seizure disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant had experienced seizures, the medical evidence demonstrated they were provoked by controllable lifestyle triggers (alcohol and sleep deprivation).

Given the appellant's compliance with medication, avoidance of triggers, and support from her treating neurologist, the Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove the condition was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

The suspension was set aside.

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

The vehicle was impounded after a co-worker drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as he had left the keys in an office drawer at work and explicitly told co-workers not to drive it.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible and concluded that the co-worker took the vehicle without consent with the intent to deprive the owner of it.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle, finding it was stolen at the time of impoundment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after the vehicle was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant claimed due diligence and exceptional hardship.

However, the appellant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

As the appellant bore the onus of proving his claims on a balance of probabilities and presented no evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by asking the driver if his licence was suspended and visually inspecting the licence, which appeared valid.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible and held that he exercised due diligence, as he was not required to contact the Ministry of Transportation to verify the licence status.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized when her former partner was caught driving it while his licence was suspended under the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship, citing her commute to work, care for her granddaughter, and medical needs.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had access to her husband's and parents' vehicles, and had the financial means to rent a vehicle if necessary.

Because reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle existed, the Tribunal concluded there was no exceptional hardship and confirmed the impoundment.