Jonathan Batty

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision confirming the quantum of her income replacement benefits.

The applicant argued that her fixed business expenses remained the same after the accident, despite her house cleaning business becoming inactive, and claimed an additional $2,758.01.

The Associate Chair denied the reconsideration request, finding no error in the Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant did not incur certain fixed business expenses while her business was inactive.

The Appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the Appellant's outstanding criminal charges in Alberta, including assault and failure to appear in court.

Following a Divisional Court order for a trial de novo, the Tribunal considered new evidence showing the Appellant had resolved the outstanding charges, resulting in a fine for assault and the withdrawal of the failure to appear charge.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant's delay in addressing the charges did not demonstrate a pattern of ungovernability or a risk to the public.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove the Appellant would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of the Licence Appeal Tribunal's decision confirming the suspension of his driver's licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to cognitive impairment.

The appellant argued that his grade four education affected his cognitive test results.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the original decision considered his education level and relied on multiple medical and functional driving tests indicating his cognitive impairment significantly interfered with his ability to drive safely.

The appellant failed to establish any legal or factual error, false evidence, or new evidence to justify reconsideration.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision confirming the Registrar's cancellation and seizure order, which terminated its right to operate commercial trucks on Ontario highways.

The appellant argued that new evidence, specifically the replacement of a driver with a poor safety record and improved safety monitoring, warranted reconsideration under Rule 18.2(d).

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that remedial efforts taken after the hearing do not constitute 'new evidence' that was in existence at the time of the decision but could not reasonably have been obtained.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended for 90 days after providing a breath sample over the legal limit.

He appealed the suspension on the ground of mistaken identity, arguing he was stopped based on outdated database information, despite admitting he provided the breath sample.

The Tribunal initially dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On reconsideration, the Associate Chair found the Tribunal erred in finding a lack of jurisdiction, as the appellant relied on a valid statutory ground, but held the appeal should have been dismissed as frivolous since the appellant admitted to being the person who provided the sample.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal heard misleading evidence because his family physician failed to bring clinical notes to the hearing.

The Associate Chair denied the request, finding that a witness being ill-prepared does not constitute false or misleading evidence under Rule 18.2(c), which requires an intention to deceive.

Furthermore, the clinical notes did not qualify as new evidence under Rule 18.2(d) because they existed prior to the hearing and could have been obtained earlier.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claim for interest and a special award under Regulation 664 regarding his medical marijuana expenses.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made procedural and factual errors, including proceeding in writing and misinterpreting correspondence.

The Associate Chair found no significant errors of law, fact, or procedure in the original decision, confirming that the insurer's request for a prescribing doctor's statement was reasonable and that payment was made within the required timeframe.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Case Conference Order that directed a preliminary issue—whether the applicant was precluded from applying to the Tribunal for failing to attend an insurer's examination—to be heard at the same time as the substantive issues.

The insurer argued that hearing the preliminary issue first would avoid unnecessary delay and costs.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Associate Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that a preliminary hearing would result in a more expedient process and help avoid unnecessary costs.

The appellant police officer appealed her disciplinary convictions on the grounds that the Hearing Officer's private lunches with the prosecutor created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that while the private lunches did create a reasonable apprehension of bias, the appellant had waived her right to raise the issue because her experienced representative failed to object at the earliest opportunity and instead waited until after the unfavourable decision on the merits was rendered.

The appeal was dismissed and the convictions and penalties were confirmed.

The applicant licensee applied under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act to remove a condition on its liquor licence prohibiting the operation of a nightclub and live amplified music.

The applicant argued that the Registrar no longer enforced such conditions and that the neighbourhood's culture had changed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a change in circumstances, noting recent enforcement actions and community complaints.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue a Notice of Proposal to refuse to remove the condition, allowing the matter to proceed to a full hearing if appealed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson due to outstanding criminal charges and a warrant in Alberta.

Following a Divisional Court decision remitting the matter for a new hearing, the Tribunal heard evidence that the appellant had scheduled a trial for the outstanding charges.

The Tribunal adjourned the appeal and ordered the parties to provide submissions regarding the trial outcomes before rendering a final decision on the registration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's oral decision denying his motion to stay the proceedings pending a Superior Court decision.

The applicant submitted a two-paragraph affidavit stating his belief that the decision should be reconsidered, but provided no supporting particulars or facts.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to make a prima facie case or provide any basis for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied his application for income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant alleged the Tribunal denied him natural justice and procedural fairness by ignoring or mischaracterizing his medical evidence.

The Associate Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the original adjudicator committed significant errors of law and fact by failing to consider the applicant's evidence regarding his weight and by substantially mischaracterizing the medical reports of several doctors.

The application was ordered to be reheard by a different adjudicator.

The applicant, a tow truck driver, was injured when a glass pane broke while he was helping an auto body shop owner open a garage bay door after delivering a broken-down taxi.

He applied for an income replacement benefit, which the insurer denied on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal initially agreed.

On reconsideration, the Associate Chair upheld the decision, finding that while the purpose test was met, the causation test failed because the shop owner's request for help was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation between the use of the tow truck and the injury.

The respondent insurer requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that the applicant was not precluded by s. 61 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule from claiming accident benefits.

The applicant had been injured in a motor vehicle accident while working and initially claimed WSIB benefits before electing to pursue a tort action and accident benefits.

The insurer argued that an election must be made primarily for the purpose of a tort claim, not equally for tort and accident benefits.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, holding that s. 61(2) permits an election made for the equal purposes of pursuing a tort action and claiming accident benefits, provided the tort action is brought in good faith.

The Associate Chair also found no error in the Tribunal's assessment of the tort claim's viability or its weighing of subjective and objective factors.

The insurer requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded the claimant a special award under s. 10 of the Automobile Insurance Regulation for unreasonable delay in paying benefits.

The Associate Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the Tribunal made an error of law by ordering the award solely because the insurer agreed to pay the treatment plan shortly before the hearing, without evidence of unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal also breached procedural fairness by not allowing the insurer an opportunity to respond to the claimant's late request for the special award.

The order granting the s. 10 award was cancelled.

The homeowners appealed Tarion's decision to deny their claim under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Tarion brought a motion to add the builder, Charleston Homes Ltd., as a party to the appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Tarion failed to provide specific evidence demonstrating that the builder had a significant interest in the proceeding.

The Tribunal emphasized that appeals under the Act are not meant to be procedurally complex for homeowners, and builders should only be added when their substantive rights are directly affected.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for income replacement benefits as statute-barred.

The applicant argued the limitation period should be stayed due to his mental incapacity.

The Associate Chair found no error in the Tribunal's conclusion that mental incapacity was not established at the relevant time.

However, the Associate Chair found the Tribunal made a significant error of law by failing to consider its discretion to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999.

Applying the factors for an extension of time, the Associate Chair granted the extension, noting the applicant's declining capacity, the short delay, lack of prejudice to the insurer, and the merits of the claim.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied its motion for costs.

The insurer argued that the applicant's conduct, including withdrawing the application the day before the hearing and failing to provide sufficient medical evidence, was frivolous and vexatious.

The Associate Chair found that the applicant had provided some rational foundation for his claim and was not acting without reasonable cause.

The request for reconsideration was denied, as the applicant's conduct did not meet the threshold for a cost award under Rule 19.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the Tribunal ignored evidence of the applicant's pre-accident intentions and post-accident work, misapplied the causation test, and heard false or misleading evidence.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, finding that the omitted evidence would not have changed the outcome and that the insurer failed to pursue the evidence during the written hearing.

The reconsideration request was denied.