Patricia Conway

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Registrar's refusal was based on the appellant's recent conviction for possession of stolen property and his initial false statements to police.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, viewed in its entirety, demonstrated that the offence was an aberration and that he had otherwise led a blameless life.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate lawfully and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the registration subject to conditions, including completing a management course and posting a $10,000 Letter of Credit.

The appellant, a payday loan business, appealed the Registrar's proposal to revoke and refuse to renew its licence under the Payday Loans Act, 2008.

The Registrar alleged that the past conduct of the appellant's principal and the business's inspection history afforded reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant was currently contravening the Act, particularly regarding segregated bank accounts and financial disclosure, the principal had operated with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal declined to revoke the licence, instead ordering a six-month suspension to allow the appellant to bring its operations into compliance, after which it would be limited to operating a single office.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a hospital admission for a reported major depressive disorder.

The Registrar required a three-month period of stability before considering reinstatement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including a report from the appellant's family physician, indicated her condition was stable and she had appropriate insight into her condition.

The Tribunal concluded that the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffered from a mental condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The Registrar's decision was set aside and the licence suspension was overturned.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a hospital admission for a reported major depressive disorder.

The Registrar required a three-month period of stability before considering reinstatement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including a report from the appellant's family physician, indicated her condition was stable and she had good insight into her mental health, as demonstrated by her decision not to drive when feeling distressed.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove the appellant's mental condition was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and set aside the suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to continue his driver's licence suspension.

The suspension was based on reports that the appellant suffered from seizures caused by alcohol withdrawal and sleep deprivation.

The Registrar required the appellant to remain abstinent from alcohol and seizure-free for 12 months.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's seizures were caused by sleep deprivation, not alcohol withdrawal, and that he had successfully learned to manage his sleep and alcohol consumption to remain seizure-free.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not suffer from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and ordered the reinstatement of his licence.

The appellant's business vehicle was impounded for 45 days after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship to its HVAC business.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as required by Ontario Regulation 631/98, because the owner had not fully explored renting other vehicles or using a trailer.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, appealed the Registrar's decision to downgrade his Class A commercial driver's licence to a Class G licence following a seizure.

The seizure was caused by a brain tumour, which was subsequently treated with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.

The Registrar required the appellant to remain seizure-free for five years before reinstating his commercial licence, treating the condition as a seizure disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the seizure was a provoked seizure caused by the tumour, not epilepsy.

Relying on medical evidence that the tumour was stable and the likelihood of further seizures was low, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the appellant's Class A licence.

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

The vehicle was impounded after she was caught driving with a licence that had been suspended since 2004.

While the Tribunal found her licence was indeed suspended, it granted the appeal on the basis of exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal accepted that the appellant, who suffers from COPD and other medical conditions, had no viable alternative transportation to attend medical appointments and obtain necessary groceries in her rural community, and that the continued impoundment threatened her health.

The vehicle was ordered released to its co-owner.

The appellant appealed the suspension of his driver's licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report indicating a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

The Tribunal found that the incident was a severe panic attack, not an alcohol withdrawal seizure.

While the appellant admitted to having an alcohol use disorder, the Tribunal concluded it was well-controlled and did not significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the appellant's licence.