Rebeka Lauks

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to apply conditions to his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar sought to impose conditions based on the appellant's past conduct and a quashed national security certificate from 2001.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that there was no evidence of adverse conduct since 2009 and that the proposed conditions were unwarranted and unreasonable.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal, ordering that no conditions attach to the registration.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of related WSIB and WSIAT proceedings.

The applicant argued that the WSIAT appeal would not be heard for another year, resulting in a delay of over three and a half years since the appealed decision.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB/WSIAT proceedings had become unduly prolonged and that deferral was no longer the most fair, just, and expeditious way to process the application.

The request to reactivate the application was granted.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking a further and better Response from the respondent and the exclusion of a document attached to the Response, claiming it was subject to settlement privilege.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the Response contained sufficient information for the applicant to file a Reply and that it was premature to exclude the document before the hearing stage.

The requests were denied without prejudice to the applicant's right to renew them later.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability when the respondent failed to readmit her into its chiropractic program with accommodation.

She brought requests for an interim remedy ordering her readmission into the third year of the program and to expedite the proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding that the balance of convenience did not favour it and it was not just and appropriate, as readmission would create a new state of affairs and bypass important questions for the full hearing.

The Tribunal also denied the request to expedite, noting the applicant's 19-month delay in bringing the request and finding no urgent resolution was required.

The appellant sought out-of-country funding for surgery to repair a medical condition, arguing that a delay in Ontario would cause irreversible tissue damage.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board denied the request, and the appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The appellant argued the Board lost jurisdiction by reconstituting the hearing panel and ignored medical evidence regarding tissue damage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the panel reconstitution and concluding the Board's decision on the medical evidence was reasonable.