Rebecca Hines

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.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act for driving while suspended.

He filed the appeal 39 days after the impoundment, missing the 15-day deadline, and brought a motion to extend the time.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding the delay was partly due to the Registrar's failure to issue the Notice of Impoundment and Release in a timely manner.

On the merits, the appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had alternative means of transportation, such as public transit and walking, and therefore failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a pre-existing knee condition and accident-related chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing condition prevented recovery within the MIG, and preferred the respondent's physiatrist's evidence that the injuries were soft-tissue in nature.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an income replacement benefit, finding no evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence following a severe hypoglycemic episode that resulted in a motor vehicle accident.

The Registrar suspended the licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act based on a medical report indicating the appellant's diabetes could affect her ability to drive safely.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that although the appellant had taken steps to manage her condition, she had not met the six-month period of stability recommended by the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers.

The Tribunal confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence due to a cognitive disorder.

The Registrar received a Medical Condition Report from a treating physician indicating the appellant had dementia affecting his attention, judgment, and memory.

The appellant acknowledged the diagnosis but argued it did not impact his driving, though he provided no medical evidence to support this.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a prescribed Criminal Code offence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen by his son in the middle of the night without permission.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible, concluding that the vehicle was taken without consent with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner of it, meeting the legal definition of 'stolen'.

The appeal was granted and the vehicle was ordered released.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by misinterpreting the AMA Guides, improperly weighing the evidence of her chiropractor regarding psychological and substance abuse impairments, and violating procedural fairness.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact, as it was beyond the scope of a chiropractor to assign ratings for psychological impairments or diagnose substance abuse disorders.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, chiropractic services, psychological treatment, and prescription medications following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the treatment plans and medication expenses were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, which indicated the applicant sustained soft-tissue injuries and had achieved maximum medical recovery.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, including claims for interest and a special award.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act due to a mental health condition.

The suspension followed a police report of erratic driving and acute psychosis, and medical reports diagnosing the appellant with bipolar I disorder and a substance use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition that significantly interferes with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's lack of insight into his condition, his discontinuation of prescribed medications without medical supervision, and the absence of a physician's support for his return to driving.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded because the appellant's spouse was driving it while her license was suspended due to a Criminal Code conviction.

During the hearing, the Ministry of Transportation agreed to release the vehicle and pay the outstanding impound fees.

The Tribunal closed the file.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision awarding the applicant an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $400 per week.

The insurer argued the adjudicator erred by failing to account for post-accident income deductions, using the word 'entitled', and not providing an end date for the IRB.

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration in part, finding an error of law and fact in failing to apply s. 7(3) of the Schedule to allow deductions for post-accident income.

The decision was varied to explicitly state the IRB is payable less any deductions for post-accident income.

The insurer's other arguments regarding the language of the order were dismissed.

The appellant employer sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded after an employee was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed the appeal 12 days past the 15-day statutory deadline.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, provided no reasonable explanation for the delay after receiving the notice of impoundment, and had no reasonable chance of success on the merits because it failed to exercise due diligence by checking the employee's driver's abstract.

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

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen because she had not given her partner permission to drive it and had hidden the keys.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible and concluded the vehicle was taken without consent, meeting the legal definition of a stolen vehicle.

The appeal was granted and the vehicle was ordered released.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG because he sustained a concussion and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal awarded the cost of a psychological assessment but denied the claims for physiotherapy, non-earner benefits, and attendant care benefits, finding the applicant did not meet the respective tests for entitlement.

Claims for a special award and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries from the first accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as she failed to provide compelling medical evidence that pre-existing conditions would prevent her recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claims for a non-earner benefit and several physiotherapy treatment plans, concluding that she did not meet the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life and failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision awarding the applicant a non-earner benefit for a three-month period due to the insurer's failure to comply with its procedural obligations under s. 36(4) of the Schedule.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law by awarding the benefit despite finding the applicant did not meet the substantive entitlement test, and breached procedural fairness by ignoring alleged misrepresentation.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the insurer was attempting to relitigate issues and raise new legal arguments and allegations of misrepresentation that were not properly before the Tribunal at the initial hearing.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits (ACBs), and medical benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from claiming IRBs because she failed to apply or qualify within 104 weeks of the accident.

The Tribunal also determined the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, finding the impairment ratings provided by her assessors were inflated and unsupported by the medical record.

The applicant was awarded ACBs of $905.34 per month from May 31, 2022, subject to proof the expenses were incurred, but her claims for medical benefits, examination expenses, 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 when her ex-spouse was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her severe medical conditions, upcoming surgery, and inability to use public transit or afford alternative transportation while on Ontario Works.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle for attending required medical treatments and that the impoundment posed a risk to her health and safety.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant filed a motion seeking an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was impounded after her son was caught driving it while suspended.

The appellant filed her appeal 47 days after the impoundment, well past the 15-day statutory deadline.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was lengthy without reasonable explanation, and the appeal lacked merit as the appellant had access to alternative transportation.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

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

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence in determining his licence was valid and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to take active steps to confirm the licence status and relied on assumptions.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to alternative transportation such as public transit, ride-sharing, and rental vehicles.