Rebecca Hines

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded because her spouse was driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternative means of transportation, such as her father's car, public transit, and another vehicle owned by her husband, and therefore failed to meet the test for exceptional hardship.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for an income replacement benefit, attendant care, and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant alleged the Tribunal violated procedural fairness, made errors of law and fact, heard false evidence, and sought to introduce new evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no breach of procedural fairness in the Tribunal's procedural rulings or hearing management.

While acknowledging minor factual errors in the original decision, the adjudicator concluded they were inconsequential and would not have changed the outcome regarding causation of the applicant's physical and psychological impairments.

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

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

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

The appeal was resolved and the file closed.

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

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship as she is a single mother on maternity leave who needs the vehicle for work and medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to alternative transportation such as public transit and ride-sharing services, and that inconvenience does not meet the threshold for exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his commercial truck under the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as the employee took the keys from an unlocked lockbox without permission while the appellant was on vacation.

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

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

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

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to take active steps to verify the driver's licence status near the time of the incident.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternative means of transportation, including assistance from friends, family, and taxis.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision finding that the claimant sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The insurer argued the adjudicator erred in law and fact by accepting a neuropsychological assessment where the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E) was administered by an occupational therapist rather than the neuropsychologist.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no error of law because the Schedule permits a neuropsychologist to be assisted by other regulated health professionals.

While acknowledging a factual error regarding whether the insurer's assessor administered the GOS-E, the adjudicator concluded this error would not have changed the result, as the claimant's expert evidence was more consistent with the medical record.

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 adjudicator erred in law by not stopping the analysis after finding the applicant did not meet the substantive test for the benefit, and breached procedural fairness by allowing the applicant to profit despite alleged misrepresentations.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the insurer was improperly attempting to relitigate issues and raise new legal arguments not presented at the initial hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a prior Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment and was not entitled to disputed medical and attendant care benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness and made errors of fact and law, including misapprehending medical evidence and improperly admitting a prior court decision to impeach her credibility.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues and re-weigh evidence already considered.

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 was driving in contravention of a condition requiring an ignition interlock device.

The appellant argued he believed the condition had been removed after completing a remedial driving program and that he exercised due diligence by contacting Service Ontario and the Ministry.

The Tribunal found that the licence was still subject to the condition at the time of impoundment and that the appellant failed to establish he exercised due diligence in confirming the status of his licence.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant was injured in an all-terrain vehicle rollover and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6, 7, and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criteria 6 or 7, preferring the respondent's medical assessments over the applicant's, noting that the applicant's chiropractor improperly assigned ratings outside his scope of practice and without conducting in-person assessments.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not suffer marked impairments in the spheres of function under Criterion 8.

Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $9,977.20 in overpaid income replacement benefits to the respondent, plus interest.

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

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship due to job loss, financial strain, and the need to transport elderly in-laws and her spouse to medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove she had no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as public transit, taxis, and accessible transit were available options despite the inconvenience and cost.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision finding that her accident-related impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law and fact by misapplying s. 18(2) of the Schedule regarding her pre-existing psychological condition and disregarding evidence of driving anxiety.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues and reweigh evidence already considered, which does not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after her ex-spouse was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant, a single mother of three young children with limited financial means, had no viable transportation alternatives.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment posed a threat to the health and safety of the appellant and her children, and would result in financial loss and loss of education.

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

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

The vehicle was impounded because her spouse drove it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the impoundment caused stress and inconvenience, the appellant had access to alternative transportation, including a second vehicle, public transit, and support from family.

Therefore, the exceptional hardship threshold was not met.

The applicant brought a motion to determine the interest payable on a previously approved treatment plan for home modifications and a 25% special award.

The respondent argued that interest on the special award was discretionary under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The Tribunal applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation and found that the 2% compounded interest on an award is mandatory, not discretionary.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $154,028.00 for the outstanding interest on the OCF-18 and the award.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment from a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness by relying on hearsay evidence from medical reports and erred in finding his expert witness recanted his opinion.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the hearsay evidence was only one of many factors considered and the applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine on it.

The Tribunal also found no error regarding the expert witness, who admitted during cross-examination that his opinion was inaccurate because he had not reviewed crucial medical records that contradicted the applicant's self-reports.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the respondent insurer failed to comply with its procedural obligations under s. 36(4) of the Schedule by responding late to the application, and ordered payment of the benefit for the period of non-compliance.

However, for the remaining period, the Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant's evidence lacked objective support, and the respondent's independent examination assessors noted inconsistencies and symptom exaggeration.

The applicant was involved in a motorcycle accident and sustained a traumatic brain injury.

He applied for a catastrophic impairment determination under Criterion 4 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, relying on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E).

The adjudicator found that the applicant met the threshold for a lower moderate disability, primarily due to his inability to return to work in his previous capacity, and thus qualified for catastrophic impairment status.

The adjudicator also awarded partial attendant care benefits and approved several treatment plans for occupational therapy, psychological services, and a laptop, while denying other claimed medical benefits and a claim for a special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing physical and psychological conditions.

She also sought a non-earner benefit and funding for various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions were exacerbated by the accident or prevented her from achieving maximum medical recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, finding the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life compared to her pre-accident activities.

Consequently, the proposed treatment plans outside the MIG were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.