Jeffery Campbell

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons following a diagnosis of a sensory/focal seizure in the context of a subdural hematoma.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant did suffer from the medical condition, he had been seizure-free for over four months and his physicians had discontinued his anti-seizure medication.

Departing from the CCMTA Medical Standards recommendation of a six-month restriction, the Tribunal concluded the condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the suspension.

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

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship as she was pregnant and needed the vehicle for work and errands.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to reasonable alternatives, including public transit and rides from friends, and therefore failed to meet the statutory test for exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the driver had permission from the person left in charge of the vehicle.

However, the Tribunal found exceptional hardship was established because the appellant lost income, had no reasonable alternative transportation, and the impoundment posed a threat to her son's health due to a medical condition requiring transportation to school.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle ordered released.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, she exercised due diligence, and the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's evidence regarding the alleged theft inconsistent, noting she took no steps to verify the driver's licence status, and concluding she had alternative transportation options, thus failing to establish exceptional hardship.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The issues in dispute were whether the applicant's injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), entitlement to $4,200 for psychotherapy treatment, interest, and an award.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological impairment (post-traumatic stress disorder) as a result of the accident, warranting removal from the MIG.

However, the claim for $4,200 in psychotherapy treatment was denied because the expense was incurred before a treatment plan (OCF-18) was submitted, contrary to section 38(2) of the Schedule.

Claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her Class G1 driver's licence for medical reasons under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar relied on medical reports indicating the appellant suffers from cognitive impairment due to vascular dementia and Moya Moya disease.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's cognitive impairment is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, noting she had not yet completed a required functional driving assessment and instruction.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

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

The Registrar alleged the appellant made false statements on multiple registration applications regarding outstanding judgments, debts, and bankruptcies, and that he misappropriated commission funds owed to realtors employed by his former brokerage.

The Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly made false statements on his applications and that his past conduct, including the misappropriation of funds and failure to notify the Registrar of material changes, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to refuse registration, finding that conditions would not sufficiently protect the public.

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 due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not insisting on seeing the driver's licence, and that the impoundment did not cause exceptional hardship because the appellant had adequate transportation alternatives.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove that there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle available, as he had rented a vehicle, obtained rides, and recently purchased another vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class G1 driver's licence for medical reasons under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on a physician's report suggesting the appellant suffered from severe alcohol use disorder.

At the hearing, the appellant provided credible testimony that the initial report was based on a miscommunication and that he seldom consumes alcohol.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence, finding that the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on a report that the appellant suffered from severe alcohol use disorder following a liver transplant.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant does suffer from alcohol use disorder, the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's successful completion of an inpatient rehabilitation program, ongoing medical monitoring, strict workplace testing, and a supportive letter from his nurse practitioner.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it was stolen at the time it was driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant testified that she had loaned the vehicle to her daughter, and the daughter's boyfriend took the vehicle without permission while the daughter was asleep.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was taken without consent with the intent to deprive the owner temporarily, meeting the definition of a stolen vehicle.

The appeal was granted and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on medical reports indicating the appellant suffers from severe alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including a Medical Condition Report and Substance Use Assessment from a nurse practitioner, established the diagnosis on a balance of probabilities.

Given the short period of abstinence and lack of formal treatment, the Tribunal concluded the condition was likely to significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a friend with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including a motorcycle, rides from co-workers, and his wife's vehicle.

As such, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, and the appeal was dismissed.