Kevin Lundy

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for income replacement benefits and various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law in assessing her pre-104 week disability test.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to relitigate the original hearing by asking the Tribunal to re-evaluate the same evidence.

The adjudicator confirmed that the original decision properly weighed the evidence, including functional capacity assessments and medical reports, and found no significant legal or evidentiary mistake.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied further treatment and non-earner benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG due to chronic pain syndrome, relying on the applicant's credible testimony and the evidence of a chronic pain specialist.

Applying the Heath framework, the Tribunal also found the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life and awarded non-earner benefits.

The disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy and a chronic pain assessment were deemed reasonable and necessary and were approved with interest.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a non-earner benefit and funding for a psychiatric and chronic pain assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

Applying the Heath test, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to work, drive, and manage childcare and self-care independently.

The Tribunal also denied the proposed assessment, finding it was not reasonable or necessary given the lack of objective medical evidence supporting chronic pain syndrome or psychiatric impairment, and noting the applicant's own lack of interest in psychological treatment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle collision.

The insurer terminated benefits, alleging the collision was staged and the applicant wilfully misrepresented material facts.

Relying on forensic engineering evidence, electronic crash data, and numerous inconsistencies in the applicant's testimony, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove he was involved in an 'accident' as defined by the Schedule.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant wilfully misrepresented material facts, including falsely claiming the airbags deployed, and ordered the applicant to repay all benefits received.

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

The matter proceeded to a hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

At the start of the hearing, the parties advised that they had resolved the file on a full and final basis.

The Tribunal closed the file.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, which relied heavily on subjective self-reporting without sufficient objective medical documentation or validity testing, failed to establish chronic pain or severe psychological injury.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The disputed treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary only up to the remaining MIG limit.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as there was no evidence the insurer acted unreasonably.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a sideswipe motor vehicle collision, claiming entitlement to an income replacement benefit, various medical and rehabilitation treatment plans, and a special award.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment and that the proposed treatments were not reasonable or necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, preferring the evidence of the respondent's experts who found no objective pathology, noted significant self-limiting and non-credible behaviour on validity testing, and concluded the collision forces were insufficient to cause the alleged mild traumatic brain injury.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed as the respondent's adjusting was found to be reasonable.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a travel retailer under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, citing financial concerns and past conduct.

The parties waived a hearing and agreed to a consent order continuing the registration subject to strict conditions, including timely filing of financial statements, responding to Registrar requests, and maintaining positive working capital by a specified deadline.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain, pre-existing conditions, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain syndrome, as she did not meet the AMA Guides criteria and her functionality was not significantly impaired.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment or that her pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery.

The applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and she was entitled to the disputed treatment plans only up to the remaining MIG limit.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that directed the Registrar to revoke their motor vehicle dealer and salesperson registrations.

The appellants argued the Tribunal made factual errors regarding the employment restrictions of a former manager who had forged signatures.

The Tribunal acknowledged minor factual errors regarding the manager's registration status but found these errors were not determinative.

The original decision to revoke the registrations was well-supported by other evidence, including the appellant's reckless disregard for the forgeries and his admission to providing false information on ten separate registration renewal applications.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after police discovered it being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence, as the driver took the keys from her home without permission while she was on vacation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant knew the driver had access to the keys and suspected his licence was suspended, yet failed to take adequate steps to secure the keys or confirm his licence status.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by his son at the time it was detained.

The son, whose licence was suspended, took the vehicle while the appellant was on vacation.

The Tribunal found that the son did not intend to deprive the appellant of the vehicle and that the appellant had provided implied consent by failing to secure the keys, especially given a previous similar incident.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicant, who sustained catastrophic impairments in a motorcycle accident, sought various statutory accident benefits denied by the respondent insurer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant entitled to attendant care benefits of $6,000 per month, preferring the evidence of the applicant's occupational therapists who accounted for his fluctuating daily functionality over the respondent's assessor.

The Tribunal also awarded $87,809 for home modifications and capped the assessment cost at $2,200, finding most proposed modifications reasonable and necessary.

The claim for dietician services was granted due to the applicant's accident-related appetite loss and blood sugar management issues.

However, the Tribunal denied funding for service dog training, finding insufficient evidence that it was a reasonable and necessary medical benefit, and declined to order a special award as the insurer's denials were not unreasonable.

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

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

The applicant claimed her injuries were outside the MIG due to chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain under the AMA Guides criteria, noting her lack of engagement with treatment and failure to follow medical recommendations.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limits.

The applicant was also found not entitled to income replacement benefits as she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse her application for a cannabis retail manager licence.

The refusal was based on her past operation of illegal "Cannabis Culture" dispensaries and her 2017 convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, characterized by civil disobedience and transparency, did not establish reasonable grounds to believe she would fail to act in accordance with the law, honesty, or integrity if licenced.

The Tribunal noted her full compliance with bail and probation terms and her current commitment to the legal cannabis framework.

The Tribunal set aside the Notice of Proposal and directed the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the driver was caught driving with a suspended licence.

While the Tribunal found the appellant had no reasonable alternative transportation to commute to work, it concluded he failed to demonstrate any immediate, significant, or lasting financial or economic loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the driver at the time of impoundment was not suspended and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her stepsister, rather than the suspended driver, was operating the vehicle.

The Tribunal also found the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternatives to the impounded vehicle were available, as she was able to use public transit, taxis, and ride-sharing to commute to work.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after police discovered it being driven by an individual with a suspended licence who was test-driving the vehicle for a potential buyer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant owned multiple other vehicles and failed to demonstrate that there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle available, which is a mandatory prerequisite for establishing exceptional hardship.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as motor vehicle dealers and salespersons, and to refuse a new corporate registration.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the business manager forging signatures on bills of sale and the principal's repeated failure to disclose an Environmental Protection Act conviction on renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the principal's past conduct, including his failure to provide adequate oversight, his disregard for employment restrictions placed on the business manager, and his repeated false statements to the regulator, afforded reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal.

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

The Registrar's proposal was based on the business manager forging signatures on bills of sale and the principal's repeated failure to disclose an Environmental Protection Act conviction on renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the principal's past conduct, including a lack of oversight that permitted the forgeries and his wilful blindness or recklessness in providing false statements to OMVIC, afforded reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke and refuse the registrations, finding that terms and conditions would not sufficiently protect the public.