OLAT 2018

The appellant, a long-time racehorse owner, appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke his licence and an Order of Immediate Suspension issued by the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing.

The Registrar's actions were based on the appellant's recent criminal conviction for selling chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamines and his provision of misleading information about the conviction on his licence renewal application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that, despite the serious criminal conviction and the false application, the appellant's pristine 28-year record as a licensee, his genuine remorse, and his strict compliance with his conditional sentence outweighed the negative conduct.

The Tribunal concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty and integrity as a licensee in the future, and set aside both the proposal to revoke and the immediate suspension.

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

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the appellant's mother had left the keys accessible to the father.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant failed to prove there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, having managed with public transportation and assistance from her aunt.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order confirmed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The evidence showed she was able to rely on friends, taxis, and hitchhiking to get to work, medical appointments, and grocery shopping.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order confirmed.

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

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the keys were left accessible and the appellant did not believe her husband was stealing it.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including assistance from family and public transportation.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order confirmed.

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

Her husband was caught driving the vehicle while his licence was suspended for Criminal Code convictions.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had utilized several alternative methods of transportation during the impoundment period, including purchasing uncertified cars, using public transit, and receiving assistance from family and friends.

Consequently, the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his class G driver's licence on the basis of alcohol dependence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant suffered from alcohol abuse, he had sufficient control over his consumption and had not driven after drinking since 1985.

The Tribunal concluded that the Registrar failed to establish that the appellant's alcohol use constituted a disability likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was allowed and the suspension was set aside.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to an alcohol use disorder and dysthymia.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant's dysthymia and anxiety did not significantly interfere with his ability to drive, his alcohol use disorder did.

The Tribunal noted two medical condition reports from psychiatrists and the appellant's recent hospitalization for alcohol use.

Applying the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded the appellant had not met the required period of abstinence and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar not to carry out the proposal and imposing several conditions on the appellant's registration, including compliance with disclosure requirements, passing a certification course, and a two-year restriction on applying for a dealership licence.

The appellant appealed the suspension of his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar suspended the licence after the appellant, who has Type 1 diabetes, suffered an extreme hypoglycemic event while asleep.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had re-established stable glycemic control, was highly knowledgeable about his condition, and maintained a healthy lifestyle.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not suffer from a physical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse their registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The individual appellant had previously pled guilty to assault with sexual connotations against a driving student and received a conditional discharge.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's misleading statements to the regulator regarding the assault, his blaming of the victim, and his persistent refusal to discuss the matter demonstrated a lack of honesty, integrity, and governability.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the registrations.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing issued Notices of Proposal to refuse to renew the liquor sales licence of UFO KTV Inc. and to refuse to transfer that licence to MYST KTV.

The Registrar alleged numerous violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations over an eight-month period, including serving minors, overcrowding, permitting drug use, and failing to post a suspension sign.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that multiple violations occurred and that the licensee's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that it would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse to renew the licence, rendering the transfer application moot.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence following a medical condition report citing unstable mental illness and drug dependence.

The Registrar requested updated mental health and substance use assessments, which the appellant failed to provide.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's testimony regarding her medical history and substance use to be unreliable and noted her lack of insight into her mental health conditions, including a previous diagnosis of bipolar disorder.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant suffers from a mental condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence on medical grounds following a sudden loss of consciousness caused by ventricular tachycardia.

The Registrar required a six-month symptom-free period and confirmation that the appellant's implantable cardioverter defibrillator had not delivered therapy before considering reinstatement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and that the Registrar's decision was consistent with the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators' Medical Standards for Drivers.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical report indicating cognitive impairment and dementia.

The Registrar required a satisfactory functional driving assessment before reinstating the licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant lacked insight into his medical condition and that the Registrar's request for a functional assessment was reasonable to ensure public safety.

The Tribunal confirmed the suspension.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's daughter allowed her boyfriend, a suspended driver, to drive it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because he had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as relying on neighbours for transportation to town and medical appointments.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the applicant's testimony credible regarding the heavy physical demands of his pre-accident employment as a drywaller and steel framer.

Relying on the applicant's evidence and his treating chronic pain specialist, the adjudicator concluded the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment due to pain, and awarded IRBs.

However, the claims for medical benefits and the cost of an examination were dismissed because the applicant failed to submit the disputed treatment plans into evidence.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed as the insurer reasonably relied on its own medical experts.

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

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the applicant signed a full and final release and a settlement disclosure notice.

The applicant subsequently filed a second application seeking payment of a disputed treatment plan, arguing it was not included in the settlement.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the application.

The Tribunal found that the settlement agreement was valid, full, and final, and explicitly included the disputed treatment plan amount.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, sought income replacement benefits and funding for chronic pain and physiatry assessments from her insurer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, relying on independent medical examinations that found no physical or psychological contraindications to her return to work.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the assessments, finding them not reasonable and necessary given the lack of objective medical evidence supporting ongoing impairment and the applicant's self-reported improvements and return to work as a personal support worker.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant brought a motion to remove an issue regarding the repayment of $7,910.00 in non-earner benefits from the hearing, arguing it should be the subject of a separate application by the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to set aside a Case Conference Order on a motion, and noted the proper procedure was a request for reconsideration.

However, to ensure procedural fairness, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide particulars regarding the limitation period and any allegations of fraud or wilful misrepresentation.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and were subject to the $3,500 cap.

The applicant argued she developed chronic pain, which should exclude her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence, such as clinical notes or assessments, to support her claim of chronic pain.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and fell within the MIG.

The application for a $3,454.30 medical benefit for chiropractic services and interest was dismissed.