OLAT 2017

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant claimed she needed the vehicle to transport her son to dialysis appointments.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives available, as her family had two other vehicles and the impounded vehicle had never actually been used to transport her son prior to its impoundment.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative to the impounded vehicle existed, as her husband owned a pickup truck that could be used for her employment and errands.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen by her boyfriend and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the vehicle was taken without permission, as the appellant had previously allowed her boyfriend to drive it despite knowing his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the appellant owned a second vehicle and failed to demonstrate an immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss.

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

The appellant had loaned the vehicle to a neighbour whose driver's licence was suspended.

The appellant claimed financial hardship due to impoundment fees, as he lived on a pension.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had access to his wife's vehicle as an alternative, and therefore could not consider financial loss under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The Appellant, a commercial driver with insulin-dependent diabetes, appealed the Registrar's decision to suspend his driver's licence following an episode of severe hypoglycemia.

The Registrar required a six-month period free from severe hypoglycemia before reinstatement, relying on CCMTA guidelines.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant had only two such episodes in 25 years, the cause of the recent episode was identified and resolved, and his diabetes was otherwise well-controlled and monitored.

The Tribunal concluded the Appellant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with safe driving and set aside the suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on a physician's report indicating alcohol dependence following an emergency room visit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was addicted to alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, relying on screening tests and medical reports.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence until the appellant could demonstrate 12 months of abstinence or complete a treatment program with physician support.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 30 days.

The appellant admitted to several violations of the Regulation, including overcrowding and failure to clear signs of service.

The remaining issues were whether the appellant permitted drunkenness on its premises on two separate dates.

The Tribunal found that the appellant permitted drunkenness on September 13, 2015, as the patron was visibly intoxicated and the appellant failed to take action until prompted by inspectors.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegation for January 31, 2016, due to insufficient evidence that the appellant knew or ought to have known of the patron's drunkenness.

Written submissions on sanction were requested.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a medical report of alcohol dependence.

The appellant argued he had completed a treatment program and his recent hospital visit was not due to an alcohol withdrawal seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of seizures but concluded the medical evidence clearly supported a finding of alcohol dependence.

Applying the CCMTA guidelines, the Tribunal found the appellant had not abstained from alcohol for a sufficient period to mitigate the risks.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed an acquaintance, whose licence was suspended for impaired driving, to drive it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship, as she had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as getting rides, taking taxis, or walking to work.

The Tribunal confirmed the impoundment.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the real estate registrations of a broker and her brokerage based on past conduct involving a complex business relationship with a foreign investor.

An arbitrator had previously found the broker breached her fiduciary duties in two real estate transactions and acted without authorization in others.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the broker's conduct in those specific transactions breached the Code of Ethics and her fiduciary duties, her otherwise unblemished 33-year career and strong client references indicated revocation was not warranted.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to revoke the registrations, but imposed strict conditions for ten years to prevent similar conflicts of interest.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's husband, whose licence was suspended for life, was caught driving it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had obtained rides from family, friends, and co-workers.

Furthermore, the financial impact did not meet the regulatory definition of being immediate, significant, and lasting.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, filing the appeal five days late.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to appeal, finding a bona fide intention to appeal and minimal prejudice to the Ministry.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove she had no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she did not have a G2 licence, her spouse's licence was suspended, and she had relied on public transportation for most of her life.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's cousin was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives for transportation to his university classes and employment.

The Tribunal concluded that the inconvenience and financial burden did not meet the strict regulatory criteria for exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition report indicating alcohol dependence and an alcohol-related seizure.

The appellant argued he only drank occasionally and that his seizure was due to hunger.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence from two physicians supported a diagnosis of alcohol abuse and an alcohol-related seizure.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded the appellant had not demonstrated the required 12-month period of abstinence or completed a treatment program.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellants, two commercial trucking companies, appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling their Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) certificates and seizing their plates due to poor safety records.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the two companies were "related" within the meaning of the Highway Traffic Act, as they were managed by the same individual who shifted operations between them to avoid regulatory sanctions.

Given the companies' high violation rates, including at-fault collisions and log book violations, the Tribunal concluded the Registrar had reason to believe the appellants would not operate safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the cancellation order was confirmed.

The Appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the Appellant's significant outstanding judgments, a past charge of fraud over $5,000 related to depositing NSF cheques, and an alleged false statement on his application.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant lacked financial responsibility due to his unaddressed debts and that his past conduct of knowingly defrauding a bank demonstrated a lack of integrity and honesty.

Although the Tribunal found the omission on his application was an honest mistake, it concluded that registration was not appropriate and ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical report of alcohol dependence.

The appellant's family physician had reported the condition but later supported immediate reinstatement based on a detailed treatment and monitoring plan, noting that initial abnormal biochemical markers were confounded by other medications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the treatment plan and monitoring were sufficient to mitigate the risk to public safety.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not addicted to alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and set aside the Registrar's decision.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship.

The appellant, a 67-year-old First Nations man living in a remote northern community, was caught driving while suspended after taking over driving from his anxious wife during a winter storm.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and his wife had no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, as they relied on it for basic necessities like water and wood in a community with no public transit or 911 service.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment posed a threat to the health and safety of the appellant's wife and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The applicant sought an adjournment of a written hearing regarding statutory accident benefits because she sustained multiple fractures and required surgery, preventing her from attending a scheduled medical assessment.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, arguing the applicant had sufficient time to obtain medical reports before filing the application and that further delay contravened the Tribunal's mandate.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant's exceptional and uncontemplated medical circumstances outweighed the potential prejudice to the respondent caused by the delay.

The applicant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and subsequently suffered a heart attack.

He applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for a medical benefit of $1,160.50 for assistive devices recommended by his chiropractor.

The insurer denied the treatment plan, arguing the devices were for the heart attack rather than the accidents.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary to treat the applicant's accident-related impairments, noting the devices would assist his recovery while accommodating his heart condition.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the medical benefit and interest.