Dr. H.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial AC driver's licence to a G class licence due to a heart condition and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

The Minister relied on medical reports and the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, which disqualify commercial drivers with an ICD implanted for secondary prophylaxis.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's medical condition, which included ischemic cardiomyopathy and a history of ventricular tachycardia, posed a risk of sudden incapacitation that could not be adequately mitigated by remote monitoring or infrequent driving.

The Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision to downgrade the licence.

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.

During an arbitration hearing, the union brought a motion to exclude the employer's representative, the grievor's former manager, from the hearing room during the grievor's testimony.

The union argued that the manager's presence triggered the grievor's anxiety and stress, relying on medical notes from her physician.

The employer opposed the motion, arguing the manager's presence was necessary to instruct counsel.

The arbitrator found that the grievor had a medically supported restriction requiring accommodation.

Balancing the competing interests, the arbitrator ordered that the manager be excluded from the hearing room but permitted to observe the proceedings via a live video and audio feed from another room, satisfying the medical restriction while minimizing prejudice to the employer.

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

The respondent insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant sustained impairments from the accident, including exacerbation of pre-existing back issues and a concussion, she did not meet the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of occupational therapists over the applicant's self-reports, noting she continued to engage in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, including providing childcare for her granddaughter.

The application was dismissed.