OLAT 2019

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by her domestic partner, a suspended driver.

She argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that exceptional hardship was not available as a ground of appeal because the appellant had a previous vehicle impounded.

Furthermore, even if available, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship as she had alternatives to the impounded vehicle and the financial cost of impoundment could not be considered without demonstrating a lack of alternatives.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and several medical and rehabilitation treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting a lack of detailed evidence regarding pre- and post-accident activities.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for medical benefits, preferring the respondent's orthopaedic assessment over the applicant's treating chiropractor, and finding the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish that the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, and the applicant's request for costs was denied.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for an outdoor patio attached to its establishment.

Several neighbourhood residents objected due to concerns about noise and amplified music.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the application, and the appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that granting the patio liquor licence was in the public interest, noting the appellant's history of operating similar establishments without complaints and community support.

However, to address the residents' legitimate noise concerns, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions restricting amplified sound after 8 pm on weekdays and 11 pm on weekends, and requiring courtesy signs and a contact number for complaints.

The appellant's business vehicle was impounded for 45 days after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship to its HVAC business.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as required by Ontario Regulation 631/98, because the owner had not fully explored renting other vehicles or using a trailer.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which occurred after it was driven by an unlicensed individual.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to his step-daughter-in-law, who ordinarily used the vehicle.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence to establish that the step-daughter-in-law had no alternative transportation options or that she suffered an immediate, significant, and lasting impact.

The appellant sought to appeal a 1999 decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspending his driver's licence for failing to provide a medical report.

The Tribunal found that the suspension was issued under s. 32(12)(b)(ii) of the 1999 Highway Traffic Act, which does not provide a right of appeal.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismissed it without a hearing.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the suspension of his driver's licence for medical reasons related to alcohol use disorder.

The Vice-Chair found that the original Tribunal made a significant error of law by reversing the burden of proof, incorrectly requiring the appellant to prove that his condition did not significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The reconsideration request was granted and a rehearing was ordered.

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

The vehicle was impounded after another individual drove it while subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle available to her, as she was able to rent and subsequently purchase another vehicle.

Consequently, the threshold for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 was not met, and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that new evidence, specifically a psychological assessment report and a subsequent letter from the respondent conceding the MIG did not apply, could not have been reasonably obtained earlier and would have affected the result.

The adjudicator agreed, finding that the new evidence satisfied the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(d).

The request for reconsideration was granted, and the matter was sent back for a rehearing on the reasonableness and necessity of the disputed treatment plans.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son drove it while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as he owned another vehicle and had family members who could assist with transportation.

As the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met, the Tribunal confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her spouse was caught driving it while suspended.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her medical conditions and need for the vehicle to attend medical appointments and obtain supplies.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to alternatives such as public transit and assistance from her spouse, and that the impoundment did not pose a threat to her health or safety.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a hypoglycemic event.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant has diabetes, he had regained excellent glycemic control using a continuous blood glucose monitoring device and had not experienced further hypoglycemic episodes.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's medical condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant entitled to treatment plans for a psychological assessment and psychological treatment, and ordered the respondent to pay interest.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request regarding the treatment plans, finding no significant error of fact or law.

However, the adjudicator granted the reconsideration regarding the calculation of interest, varying the decision to order interest payable 10 days from the submission of the treatment plan in accordance with the Schedule.

The applicant's request for costs was dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant the cost of an orthopaedic assessment.

The Tribunal originally found that the insurer failed to provide a 'clear and unequivocal' denial of the treatment plan and that the insurer requested an insurer's examination more often than reasonably necessary.

On reconsideration, the Vice-Chair held that the Tribunal made significant errors of law and fact, noting that section 38(8) of the Schedule does not require a 'clear and unequivocal' denial and that the insurer's notice was compliant.

The Vice-Chair also found a breach of procedural fairness because the insurer was not given an opportunity to make submissions on the frequency of examinations.

Upon reviewing the merits, the Vice-Chair concluded the applicant failed to prove the orthopaedic assessment was reasonable and necessary, and varied the decision to dismiss the application for the assessment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her medical condition and need to transport her nephew.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship, as alternative transportation was available and her circumstances did not amount to more than the inconvenience typically suffered from a vehicle impoundment.

The impoundment order was confirmed.

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

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

The applicant argued that he suffered from psychological impairments and had multiple barriers to recovery that removed him from the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a psychological injury or a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

As the applicant's injuries were determined to be minor, the claims for additional treatment plans, assessments, and an award were dismissed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after police discovered it being driven by an individual whose licence required an ignition interlock device, which the vehicle lacked.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's husband, the primary user of the vehicle, had lent it to the driver with the appellant's implied consent.

As the vehicle was not taken without consent, it was not stolen, and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended for medical reasons and subsequently reinstated.

Five months after the reinstatement, the appellant appealed the suspension to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, seeking to have the suspension purged from his driving record.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that under section 50(2) of the Highway Traffic Act, it only has the power to confirm, modify, or set aside an active decision or order of the Registrar, and cannot order the Registrar to purge its records.

The appellant appealed the 15-day impoundment of his commercial truck under the Highway Traffic Act.

The truck was impounded after a routine inspection revealed that more than 50% of the brakes' push rods travelled beyond the allowable measurement, constituting a critical defect.

The appellant argued there was no critical defect based on his employee's visual pre-trip inspection.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Ministry inspectors' measurements, taken with the brakes fully engaged, established a critical defect and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after she lent it to her daughter, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued exceptional hardship and due diligence.

The Tribunal found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternative transportation options.

However, the Tribunal found the appellant exercised due diligence by asking her daughter if she had her licence before lending the car, noting it is unreasonable to expect parents to independently verify their children's licence status with the government.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle ordered released.