Sandeep Johal

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a premises operating as Rebel and Cabana Pool Bar, seeking increased capacity and fewer restrictions than the previous licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the Application, and several community groups objected, primarily citing noise disturbances from the outdoor patio.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the indoor capacity increase was in the public interest, the outdoor capacity increase and the playing of amplified music outdoors were not, due to the significant noise impact on the Toronto Island community.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to strict conditions, including a prohibition on amplified music directed towards any outdoor area and a reduced outdoor capacity.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied four treatment plans for physical rehabilitation and driving training services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the treatment plan for physical rehabilitation in the amount of $2,907.44 and the driving training services were reasonable and necessary, though the driving training fees were limited to the FSCO Fee Guideline rates.

The Tribunal denied the remaining two physical rehabilitation treatment plans as they were duplicative and lacked sufficient evidence of reasonableness and necessity.

Interest was awarded on the approved benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The respondent insurer claimed deductions under s. 7(3) of the Schedule for post-accident payments the applicant received from her employer, a restaurant owned by her mother.

The Tribunal found that the payments were a gift intended to help the applicant financially, not employment income or a temporary disability benefit.

The applicant met the legal test for a gift, as there was an intention to give without expectation of remuneration, acceptance, and transfer.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the IRBs without deductions, plus interest.

The applicant, who was a minor at the time of the motor vehicle accident, sought a non-earner benefit which was denied by the respondent insurer in 2012.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal in 2017, more than two years after turning 18.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was statute-barred.

The Tribunal found that the 2012 denial was clear and unequivocal, triggering the limitation period when the applicant turned 18.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, an unreasonable delay, and prejudice to the respondent.

The application for the non-earner benefit was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought attendant care and housekeeping benefits following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits in October 2011.

The applicant later sought the benefits at a higher tier after being determined catastrophically impaired, arguing the limitation period did not apply or was negated by subsequent payments.

The Tribunal found the 2011 denial letter was clear and unequivocal, triggering the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act.

The Tribunal held that discoverability does not apply to the statutory accident benefits scheme and that a subsequent catastrophic impairment determination does not trigger a new limitation period.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and medical benefits for chiropractic and occupational therapy services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the non-earner benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life as he could still perform some pre-accident activities, albeit with pain.

The Tribunal granted attendant care benefits of $404.90 per month, preferring the applicant's occupational therapy assessment over the insurer's examination.

The Tribunal also approved the chiropractic treatment plan as reasonable and necessary but denied the occupational therapy plan.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments, but both parties' requests for costs were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a pre-existing back condition, documented prior to the accident, which was aggravated by the accident and prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

Consequently, the applicant was removed from the MIG.

The Tribunal further determined that the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic and massage therapy, as well as social work, psychological, and in-home assessments, were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was also awarded the cost of a disability certificate.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after their roommate was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed an appeal late and sought an extension of time, which the Tribunal granted.

On the merits, the appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to their business.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the vehicle was stolen.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the appellant did not suffer exceptional hardship because they were able to hire another driver with a truck and rent a truck from a friend, demonstrating that reasonable alternatives were available.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

Her boyfriend had taken her keys while she slept and was caught driving while suspended.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship because she had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as borrowing her mother's car or relying on friends.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the vehicle was not stolen as it was not taken with the intent to deprive the owner, and that the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship because she had access to a second vehicle and no immediate, significant, and lasting financial or economic loss was established.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her son's 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 that no due diligence was exercised to verify the driver's licence status, and that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because reasonable alternative transportation options were available.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic services.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that her injuries, including a pre-existing condition and psychological issues, warranted treatment beyond the MIG cap.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition or psychological injury that would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her boyfriend drove it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant filed an appeal within the 15-day period but her payment via pre-paid credit card was rejected.

She paid by money order shortly after the deadline.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test from Manuel v. Registrar and found that the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was short and not her fault, and she had a reasonable chance of success on the merits.

The motion to extend time was granted and the appeal was ordered to proceed directly to an expedited hearing.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $21,600 in income replacement benefits (IRBs) paid to the respondent, alleging she wilfully misrepresented her employment status at the time of the accident.

The insurer also sought $571.78 in cancellation fees for the respondent's failure to attend Examinations Under Oath.

The respondent, who was self-represented, did not attend the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the insurer failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent made a wilful misrepresentation, noting that the evidence relied upon predated the accident or was otherwise insufficient.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for cancellation fees as the insurer provided no authority or evidence to support it.

The insurer's application was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), which caps medical and rehabilitation benefits at $3,500.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including records from the emergency room, family doctor, and insurer examination, indicated the injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries.

The applicant failed to provide evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG cap.

Consequently, the application for treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $1,371.43 in Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) paid to the respondent, alleging the respondent was working during the period he received the benefits.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was employed during the disputed period and that his failure to report his return to work, combined with subsequent false statements to medical assessors, constituted wilful misrepresentation.

As a result, the 12-month limitation period for seeking repayment did not apply, and the respondent was ordered to repay the benefits plus interest.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, consisting of sprains and strains.

Although the applicant had a documented pre-existing condition, there was no medical evidence demonstrating that this condition prevented him from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans.

The applicant was injured as a pedestrian in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $4,447.56 for a physiotherapy treatment plan under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent conceded that the applicant sustained an impairment.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer examination chiropractor, who found full range of motion and no objective need for facility-based treatment, over the applicant's medical evidence which lacked clarity and corroboration.

The claim for the medical benefit was denied.

The applicant withdrew his application for statutory accident benefits dispute resolution.

The respondent insurer brought a motion for costs, arguing the application was baseless and the withdrawal caused unnecessary expense.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the costs motion because it was filed before the withdrawal.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion for costs, holding that withdrawing an application does not inherently constitute unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct under Rule 19.1, and costs are not meant to compensate for inconvenience.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, took him outside the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed psychological and physical treatment plans, as well as the cost of a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for a special award for unreasonably delayed payments was dismissed due to lack of evidence.