Marisa Victor

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

She argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused her exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had given her ex-boyfriend permission to use the vehicle and left him with a spare key.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to reasonable alternative transportation, including public transit, cabs, and family members' vehicles.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for two chiropractic treatment plans and an attendant care assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove the plans were reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's own reports of functional independence to the insurer's examiners.

The Tribunal accepted the insurer's medical evidence that further treatment was not required.

The application was dismissed.

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

The appellant had sought treatment for alcohol overconsumption and abstained from alcohol for over seven months prior to the hearing.

She also used a small amount of marijuana daily as a sleep aid.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's alcohol dependence was in remission and her marijuana use did not constitute an addiction likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

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

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The appellant testified that she had hired an acquaintance to clean her vehicle, and he took it without her permission before being arrested for impaired driving and driving while suspended.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence credible and concluded that the vehicle was taken without her consent, meeting the definition of 'stolen' under the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant travel agency appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration issued by the Registrar under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failure to file financial statements and other compliance issues.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the appeal without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, which required the appellant to comply with various terms and conditions regarding trust accounts, invoicing, and financial reporting.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the Appellant loaned it to his girlfriend, who had an unlicensed driver operate it while under a Criminal Code suspension.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the Appellant failed to exercise due diligence as he made no inquiries about the driver's licence status.

The Tribunal also rejected the claim of exceptional hardship, noting the Appellant owned a second vehicle that he had been using as an alternative during the impoundment.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded and he filed an appeal well past the 15-day appeal period, after the 45-day impoundment period had already expired.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the four factors for an extension of time and found that the delay was excessive, the prejudice to the Registrar was significant, and the proposed appeal lacked merit as the appellant could not establish exceptional hardship.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant appealed the removal of two dogs by the OSPCA.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to the return of the dogs subject to specific release conditions.

The remaining issue was the OSPCA's claim for costs of care.

Although the parties had agreed to a reduced cost amount of $1,273.12, the Board found this amount unreasonable given the appellant's extreme financial hardship, severe health issues, and monthly income of $707.

The Board exercised its discretion under s. 17(6)(d) of the OSPCA Act to reduce the costs award to $100, payable over two months, to avoid crippling the appellant's ability to care for the animals.

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

The appellant, a 67-year-old First Nations man living in a remote northern community, was caught driving while suspended after taking over driving from his anxious wife during a winter storm.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and his wife had no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, as they relied on it for basic necessities like water and wood in a community with no public transit or 911 service.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment posed a threat to the health and safety of the appellant's wife and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after his son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence in attempting to determine his son's licence status and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to make active inquiries about the licence status despite knowing his son's history of alcoholism and previous impaired driving charges.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had other vehicles available for personal use.