Raymond C. Ramdayal

The appellants requested reconsideration of a decision upholding the revocation of both an individual and a corporate condominium management licence.

The appellants argued the Tribunal erred in law and violated procedural fairness by failing to address a joint submission regarding the corporate licence.

The adjudicator agreed, finding the Tribunal failed to consider the joint submission or provide an opportunity for submissions on it.

The reconsideration was granted, and the corporate licence was reinstated subject to the conditions in the joint submission, while the individual licence revocation remained unchanged.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision confirming the Registrar's suspension of her driver's licence.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made an error of law or fact, relying on a recent medical assessment showing normal cognitive functioning.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact, and emphasized the necessity of a functional driving assessment to accurately determine driving fitness, as requested by the Registrar's Medical Review Team.

The appellants, a condominium manager and a management firm, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Condominium Management Regulatory Authority of Ontario to revoke their licences.

The regulator alleged the appellants failed to return corporation records, made an unauthorized transfer of $10,000 to the individual appellant, failed to manage common element fees, and failed to cooperate with an inspection.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not perform the activities of licensees in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal confirmed the regulator's decision to revoke the appellants' licences.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons related to an alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffered from a medical condition that was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, noting her recent relapse after residential treatment and failure to provide a requested Substance Use Assessment form.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of a company vehicle driven by the appellant's son, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was taken without permission (stolen) and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove the vehicle was stolen given the permissive family atmosphere regarding vehicle use.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to alternative vehicles and his employer accommodated him with other duties.

The impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed after a police officer determined his ability to drive was impaired by drugs.

The appellant argued his poor performance on the drug recognition evaluation was due to a pre-existing traumatic brain injury and exhaustion, not drug impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence, including the presence of drugs and paraphernalia in the vehicle, the drug recognition expert's evaluation, and a positive toxicology report, established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant was impaired by drugs and his medical condition did not significantly interfere with the evaluation.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a long-standing, unresolved alcohol problem and has not demonstrated a significant period of sobriety or attended recent treatment.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a friend with a suspended licence.

The appellant's daughter, who primarily drove the vehicle, argued the vehicle was stolen, she exercised due diligence, and the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding implicit consent for the friend to use the vehicle, a failure to take reasonable steps to verify the driver's licence, and sufficient alternative transportation options to negate exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to medical conditions, including a reported seizure, mental health condition, and substance use disorder.

The Registrar requested medical information and forms completed by a healthcare practitioner to consider reinstatement.

The appellant failed to provide the required documentation, instead submitting unrelated medical reports.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate he could safely operate a motor vehicle and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence in the interest of public safety.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence following a stroke.

The Registrar required the appellant to complete a functional driving assessment, which she failed, and subsequently refused to reinstate her licence until she could provide confirmation of significant improvement and successfully complete another assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision, finding that a functional driving assessment was necessary to confirm the appellant's fitness to drive and that her medical condition was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

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

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by relying on her daughter's assurances and a brief glimpse of a licence card.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet the high standard of due diligence, noting she was aware of her daughter's previous driving incidents and court matters but failed to make independent inquiries with the Ministry of Transportation.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was initially based on reports of substance use and a psychiatric condition, but the Registrar later relied solely on the mental health condition, requiring a three-month period of stability.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's condition, diagnosed as depression, was stable, well-managed with prescribed medication, and did not significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

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

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on a medical report indicating a mental health condition and substance use disorder.

The Registrar required a 3-month period of mental and emotional stability for reinstatement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant's condition was improving, she had not been stable for the required 3 months, was not taking prescribed medication, and had not yet been assessed by a psychiatrist.

The Tribunal concluded that her medical condition was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the suspension.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship and due diligence.

The vehicle was impounded after her boyfriend drove it while his licence was subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship, as she had access to alternative transportation, including another leased vehicle.

The Tribunal also found she failed to exercise due diligence by relying on her boyfriend's claim about his licence condition rather than verifying it independently.

The impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which was seized after his son drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because he needed the vehicle to pick up medication and groceries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives available, such as pharmacy delivery services, taxis, and assistance from his son and friends.

The appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he met the test for exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to downgrade her driver's licence from class B to class G after she suffered two nocturnal seizures.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's medical condition was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely, as insufficient time had elapsed to establish stability.

The Registrar's decision was confirmed.

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

She argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to attend monthly medical appointments and obtain prescriptions necessary for her demanding job as a cabinet maker.

The Tribunal found that the appellant could receive her prescriptions via fax and was able to walk to work and the grocery store.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship and confirmed the impoundment order.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons.

At the hearing, the Tribunal granted a confidentiality order due to the sensitive nature of the appellant's medical information.

During the proceeding, the respondent confirmed that the appellant's new medical documents had been approved and her licence had already been reinstated.

As the appellant no longer wished to proceed, the Tribunal found the appeal moot and closed the file.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after loaning it to a friend whose driver's licence was suspended in Ontario.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by verifying the driver possessed a valid Alberta driver's licence and knowing he had recently been pulled over by police without issue.

The Tribunal found the appellant took reasonable steps to ensure the driver was properly licensed and set aside the impoundment order.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant loaned it to her ex-boyfriend, who was caught driving with a suspended licence.

During the hearing, the respondent agreed to release the vehicle based on the appellant's testimony regarding her medical condition and need to attend appointments.

The matter was settled and the file closed.