Rebecca Hines

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002.

The Registrar's refusal was based on the appellant's 15-year history of serious criminal convictions and a prior breach of registration conditions.

The Tribunal found that despite the appellant's recent positive changes and support network, his extensive criminal history, failure to abide by previous conditions, and lack of recent employment history afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to refuse registration.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments, as well as entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and fell within the MIG, noting inconsistencies in her medical records and self-reports.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors over the applicant's experts.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding insufficient evidence of a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment, and denied claims for interest and an award.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove she had no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had access to public transit, taxis, and Uber.

Although the alternatives were inconvenient and financially burdensome, the Tribunal held that inconvenience cannot be considered under the regulation.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded when the appellant's husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as her husband took the keys from her purse without permission while she was asleep and ill.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible and concluded the vehicle was taken without consent with the intent to temporarily deprive her of it, meeting the legal definition of a stolen vehicle.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which occurred when her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as her son took it without her permission while she was asleep and ill.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible and held that the vehicle was taken without consent, meeting the legal definition of a stolen vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after her partner was caught driving it while his license was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit, Uber, and rides from a co-worker.

Because alternatives were available, the Tribunal could not consider other factors like financial loss or inconvenience, and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The appellant claimed he needed the vehicle to transport his family to medical appointments and for necessities, and that he could not afford alternative transportation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had access to alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit, taxis, and assistance from his brother.

As the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, the exceptional hardship test was not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he did not meet the test for an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, as the medical evidence, including insurer examinations, supported a diagnosis of soft tissue injuries.

Consequently, the claims for physiotherapy were dismissed as the MIG limits were exhausted.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant did not establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as an Uber driver.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as he failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition or chronic pain that would warrant removal.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for two treatment plans (physiotherapy and a chronic pain assessment) because its initial denial notices failed to comply with the procedural requirements of s. 38(8) and (9) of the Schedule.

Claims for subsequent treatment plans and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after her partner was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She argued exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d), citing her status as a single mother of three living in a rural area with no alternative transportation for work, school, and medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that she had no viable alternatives and that the impoundment posed a threat to her family's health and safety and would likely result in financial loss.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was directed to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder.

The suspension was initiated after an emergency room physician submitted a Medical Condition Report indicating the appellant suffered from uncontrolled substance use disorder and was non-compliant with treatment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's long history of alcohol use disorder, frequent binges, and multiple hospital admissions for withdrawal symptoms demonstrated a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her commercial vehicle after her employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She argued that she exercised due diligence by checking the employee's licence upon rehire five months prior, and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship to her heavy equipment business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that checking employee licences only once a year fell short of due diligence for a business requiring regular driving.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she owned two other personal vehicles that could serve as alternatives during the impoundment period.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding 27 claims for compensation for construction defects in her new home.

Tarion accepted 22 items as warranted and offered $11,499.07 for repairs, but denied the remaining five items.

The appellant sought $122,592.92, arguing the hardwood floors and staircase required full replacement rather than repair, and claimed punitive damages and other costs.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove the five denied items breached the warranty.

For the 22 warranted items, the Tribunal accepted Tarion's repair estimate, noting the appellant provided insufficient evidence to justify full replacement and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award punitive damages or indirect costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay $11,499.07 plus HST.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as motor vehicle dealers and salespersons.

The Tribunal found that the appellants engaged in severe misconduct, including forging consumer signatures, selling vehicles without consent, failing to complete consignment contracts, and failing to promptly remit sale proceeds.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

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

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) beyond the 104-week mark, and funding for a psychological and neurological assessment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited, preferring the respondent's insurer examinations which found only soft-tissue injuries and no psychological inability to work.

The Tribunal also denied the treatment plans, finding the psychological assessment fees exceeded the Guideline and the neurological assessment was not supported by contemporaneous medical records.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits and funding for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the attendant care expenses were incurred pursuant to s. 3(7)(e) of the Schedule, and medical evidence indicated she had returned to her personal care and housekeeping tasks.

The Tribunal also denied the treatment plan for chiropractic services, finding the cost excessive and the treatment not reasonable and necessary given the applicant's pre-existing conditions and lack of functional improvement from past treatments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, specifically $1,700 for an occupational therapy assessment.

The insurer denied the benefit based on insurer examination reports suggesting no residual physical impairment and no functional limitations from psychological issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the assessment reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's functional limitations arising from her accident-related psychological impairment, noting her ongoing struggles with focus, concentration, and work duties.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding that the insurer's reliance on its medical assessors was not excessive, imprudent, or stubborn.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the assessment plus interest.

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

The vehicle was impounded because an employee was driving it while suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant owned two other vehicles and had been using them to meet his transportation and business needs.

As alternative transportation was available, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and occupational therapy services.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's soft tissue injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit, which had been exhausted.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a general labourer.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant sought reimbursement from the Travel Industry Compensation Fund for unredeemed travel vouchers issued by an airline after flights were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the airline subsequently went bankrupt.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that under s. 57(5) of Ontario Regulation 26/05, only unredeemed vouchers issued by a registrant (travel agent or wholesaler) are eligible for reimbursement, not those issued by an end supplier such as an airline.

Furthermore, vouchers issued as a goodwill gesture are excluded under s. 57(3)5.