Marisa Victor

The respondent issued an Order to Close an auto repair shop located on the ground floor of a building with residential units above.

The appellant appealed the order, which triggered an automatic stay.

The respondent moved to lift the stay pending the hearing.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the motion, finding that the co-location of the auto repair shop and residential units posed a significant fire safety risk due to the presence of flammable liquids, combustible materials, and ignition sources, making it necessary in the interest of public safety to lift the stay.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for kitchen defects in their new home.

Tarion brought a motion to add the builder, Country Wide Homes, as a party to the appeal, arguing the builder had a significant financial and reputational interest.

The homeowners consented to the motion.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Tarion failed to establish the builder's significant interest, particularly noting that the builder took no steps to participate in the motion or establish its right to be added.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after his son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed an appeal past the 15-day deadline and brought a motion for an extension of time.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the four-part test from Manuel v. Registrar and found that the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, was misinformed about the process, and faced exceptional hardship due to a recent cancer diagnosis requiring daily hospital visits.

The Tribunal granted the motion for an extension of time.

The appellant appealed the downgrade of his commercial driver's licence to a Class-G licence following a single nocturnal seizure.

The respondent argued the appellant suffered from epilepsy and required a five-year seizure-free period under the CCMTA Guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the seizure was provoked by rapid weight loss, supplements, and an inadequate CPAP prescription, rather than epilepsy.

As the provoking factors had resolved, the Tribunal concluded the appellant did not have a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and set aside the licence downgrade.

The appellant, a children's residence operator, appealed a proposal to revoke its licence and brought a motion for confidentiality orders and a timeline order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the openness principle from Toronto Star v. AG Ontario, balancing it against the privacy interests of children.

The Tribunal granted orders protecting the identities of children and temporarily sealing Children's Aid Society records, but refused to anonymize the appellant's name, finding no significant privacy interest outweighed the openness principle for a regulated corporate entity.

The request for a 90-day timeline order was dismissed as a consent timetable was already in place.

The appellant appealed the downgrade of his commercial driver's licence to a Class-G licence following a single seizure.

The Registrar argued the appellant suffered from epilepsy and required a five-year seizure-free period under the CCMTA Guidelines.

The Tribunal found the seizure was provoked by a head injury from a fall, not epilepsy.

Applying the CCMTA Guidelines for provoked seizures, the Tribunal found the appellant had been stable for over six months and his neurologist supported his return to commercial driving.

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

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

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans for chiropractic and massage services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines (MIG).

The applicant argued that chronic pain and pre-existing conditions removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish functional impairment from chronic pain, noting inconsistencies in her self-reported symptoms and a lack of supporting employment records.

Furthermore, the applicant's pre-existing conditions were not disclosed to assessors and did not prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were minor, dismissing the claims for treatment plans and interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought funding for a chronic pain treatment program.

The respondent insurer partially approved the plan for psychological treatment but denied the physical therapy and chronic pain components, relying on an insurer's examination.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant credible and preferred the evidence of his treating assessors, who diagnosed chronic pain syndrome caused by the accident.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the remaining cost of the treatment plan, excluding transportation expenses, plus interest on overdue payments.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to alcohol dependence.

The Ministry of Transportation received a medical report indicating the appellant suffered from alcohol dependence.

The appellant had completed a substance abuse treatment program and maintained abstinence for five months.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had not yet met the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers, which recommends a six-month period of abstinence and a favourable recommendation from a treating physician.

The Tribunal confirmed the licence suspension, finding the six-month waiting period reasonable given the risks associated with alcohol dependence and driving.

The appellant appealed the downgrade of his commercial driver's licence, which was suspended and downgraded due to epilepsy.

The appellant had been seizure-free for two years following a seizure caused by a combination of stress factors and medication non-compliance.

The Tribunal considered the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, which recommend a five-year seizure-free period for commercial drivers.

The Tribunal found that the increased safety risks associated with commercial vehicles and the appellant's history of non-compliance justified the lengthier seizure-free period.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar's decision to downgrade the licence was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse their registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The individual appellant had previously pled guilty to assault with sexual connotations against a driving student and received a conditional discharge.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's misleading statements to the regulator regarding the assault, his blaming of the victim, and his persistent refusal to discuss the matter demonstrated a lack of honesty, integrity, and governability.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the registrations.

The appellant appealed an order by the OSPCA removing 89 chickens and 7 dogs from his care.

The parties reached a settlement at a case conference where the appellant surrendered the animals, the OSPCA revoked the removal order, and the appellant agreed to pay care costs.

The appellant later sought a hearing, and the OSPCA moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and abuse of process.

The Animal Care Review Board found it retained jurisdiction only over costs, but dismissed the appeal without a hearing because the appellant's remaining issues were frivolous and allowing the appeal would undermine the settlement process.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding warranty coverage for deficiencies in their residential unit.

Tarion brought a motion to add the builder, Allure, as a party to the appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the builder had a significant interest in the proceeding due to its potential financial liability, its history with the issues, and its ability to provide factual evidence.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a reported cocaine addiction.

The appellant's family physician submitted a medical condition report indicating drug dependence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's significant and repetitive use of cocaine amounted to an addiction likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Although the appellant had made positive steps toward recovery, recent cocaine use demonstrated he did not meet the criteria for remission or the recommended 12-month abstinence period.

The Tribunal confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The suspension followed a report that the appellant's implanted defibrillator (ICD) had delivered therapy after a run.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the ICD event was triggered by excessive exercise and did not result in an impaired level of consciousness or disabling therapy.

Relying on the supportive evidence of the appellant's treating cardiologists, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's heart condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

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

In an appeal regarding common element deficiencies in a condominium, the respondent warranty corporation brought a motion to add the builder as a party.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the builder had a significant interest in the proceeding because it provided warranty coverage, had been active in making repairs, and would be responsible for any payment ordered, which could amount to approximately $100,000.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a psychiatric condition.

The suspension followed reports of the appellant's hospitalization for suicidal ideation involving a motor vehicle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers and found that the appellant had not demonstrated a sufficient period of stability or obtained a treating physician's approval to return to driving.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's mental condition was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion to add the builder, Geranium Homes, as a party to an appeal regarding a new home warranty claim for a defective kitchen floor.

The appellant homeowner and the builder consented to the motion.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the builder had a significant interest in the proceeding because the appellant sought $27,000 in floor replacement costs and made allegations that put the builder's reputation at risk.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a psychological assessment and a chronic pain treatment program.

The respondent insurer denied both claims, initially relying on the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant demonstrated psychological symptoms and chronic pain related to the accident that warranted the disputed treatment plans.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's assessor over the respondent's paper-review expert, noting inconsistencies in the latter's reports.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for both the psychological assessment and the chronic pain treatment program, along with interest on the overdue payments.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order requiring it to remedy the audibility levels of the fire alarm system in its older residential building.

The appellant argued that the Office of the Fire Marshal exceeded its jurisdiction in creating the audibility Guideline, and that the Fire Department unlawfully fettered its discretion by treating the Guideline as a mandatory regulation.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the OFM had the statutory authority to issue the Guideline, the Guideline was permissive rather than mandatory, and the Fire Department appropriately exercised its discretion.

The Commission concluded that the Inspection Order was necessary to ensure fire safety and confirmed the order.