Alex McCauley

The appellant, a pizzeria, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming refusing to remove conditions from its liquor licence.

The appellant argued that the competitive landscape had changed since the conditions were imposed, placing it at a disadvantage compared to newer, unrestricted establishments.

Area residents and the City of Toronto objected, citing noise and past disruptive behaviour.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that a change in circumstances was established and that modifying, rather than completely removing, the conditions would balance the appellant's business interests with the residents' right to peaceful enjoyment of their neighbourhood.

The Tribunal ordered the modification of conditions relating to open doors/windows, outside seating, noise, and operating hours, and removed the restriction on selling spirits.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' refusal to issue a Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The refusal was based on the poor safety records of two related trucking companies controlled by the same principal.

The Tribunal found that the related companies had conditional safety ratings and poor compliance records, and that the appellant's proposed safety management and succession plans were inadequate.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to refuse the CVOR certificate.

The appellant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its plates.

The Registrar issued the order based on the poor safety record of a related company owned by the appellant's husband, and the transfer of vehicles and drivers from that company to the appellant.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence that she had no business relationship with her husband to lack credibility, and concluded that the appellant's company was an attempt to avoid the consequences of the related company's CVOR cancellation.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's order.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act on the basis of exceptional hardship.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that the appellant had an alternative vehicle available and failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship as defined by the regulation.

The Appellant applied for a liquor licence for a three-deck river boat, the Niagara Belle.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from area residents concerned about noise, traffic, and parking.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that granting the licence would not be in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application without imposing additional conditions.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for water penetration, window fogging, and lack of garage truss strapping under the second-year warranty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the water penetration and window fogging issues were first-year warranty items and thus ineligible for the second-year report.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the garage strapping was not required by the Ontario Building Code in this instance and the appellants suffered no damages.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claim in full.

The appellant withdrew his appeal of a Notice of Proposal to revoke his motor vehicle dealer registration.

The respondent Registrar filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal continue with the hearing despite the withdrawal.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that it lost jurisdiction once the appeal was withdrawn.

The matter reverts to the Registrar to carry out the sanctions outlined in the Notice of Proposal.

The appellant appealed the 15-day impoundment of its commercial trailer under the Highway Traffic Act.

Ministry of Transportation enforcement officers inspected the trailer and found that more than 50% of the brakes exceeded the allowable pushrod travel limit, constituting a critical defect.

The appellant argued it had a stellar safety record and had recently upgraded the brakes, but provided no evidence to contradict the officers' findings.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, noting its jurisdiction is limited to determining whether a critical defect existed at the time of inspection.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence to increase capacity by adding an outdoor rear patio.

Several local residents objected, citing concerns about noise, traffic, and garbage.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had a stellar record and operated primarily as a restaurant, not a bar.

The objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application without additional conditions.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, alleging involvement in misleading advertising at the dealerships where he worked and dishonest conduct surrounding his personal bankruptcy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no control over the advertising at the dealerships and that the Registrar failed to provide evidence supporting the allegations of deceit regarding his bankruptcy.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal, allowing the appellant to maintain his registration.

The appellant applied for an additional capacity of 42 persons for its outdoor patio.

Area residents and the City of Toronto objected, citing ongoing noise issues that disrupted the peaceable enjoyment of their properties.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors met the onus of establishing that granting the additional capacity was not in the public interest, given the history of noise complaints and the patio's location in a residential neighbourhood.

The application was denied.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 14 days following an incident where police found severely intoxicated patrons and an alleged assault victim on the premises.

The applicant appealed, claiming the patrons arrived intoxicated and later attempted to extort the establishment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal rejected the extortion claim as a complete fabrication, accepted the police evidence, and found that the applicant violated the Liquor Licence Act by permitting intoxicated persons on the premises and supplying them with liquor.

The Tribunal ordered written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming refusing to remove two conditions from its liquor licence that prohibited music on the patio and propped doors.

The Tribunal found that a change in circumstances, including area revitalization and technological changes, justified removing the conditions.

Noting the applicant's responsible business history and the absence of the objectors at the hearing, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to remove the conditions and, on consent, added a new condition prohibiting amplified or live music on the patio after midnight.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for a proposed pub.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents concerned about noise and unruly behaviour, citing issues with a previous establishment at the same location.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to demonstrate that granting the licence would be contrary to the public interest, noting the applicant's plans to renovate the premises and operate a professionally run establishment.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions prohibiting amplified music on the patio and requiring security on weekend evenings.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act proposed to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle salesperson and his dealership, alleging fraudulent financing practices and failure to conduct business with honesty and integrity.

The allegations stemmed from a police investigation into the dealership's practice of having clients sign blank bills of sale and manipulating numbers to secure financing for clients with negative equity.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while having clients sign blank documents was a bad business practice, there was no evidence of dishonest intent or fraud.

The Tribunal noted that the clients had not complained, the financial institutions accepted the financing practices, and the police investigation was flawed.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealer and two salespersons following criminal convictions related to operating a 'chop shop' and possession of property obtained by crime.

The parties reached a resolution and jointly requested a consent order waiving a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the Notice of Proposal in accordance with the agreed terms, which included the withdrawal of appeals by the dealer and one salesperson, and strict conditions on the remaining salesperson's registration.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's registration as a salesperson/dealer under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

During the hearing, the parties requested an adjournment and subsequently submitted a joint settlement pursuant to section 6(2) of the Act and section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal accepted the settlement and ordered the proceedings concluded without a full hearing, subject to the agreed terms and conditions.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim for alleged defects in their new home, including issues with cabinetry, flooring, and a balcony.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicants failed to submit the required Thirty Day Report and did not identify the alleged defects on the pre-delivery inspection form.

The Tribunal also accepted evidence that the balcony was a non-warrantable common element and that the ceiling texture conformed to acceptable industry standards.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse and revoke the registrations of the applicants under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, incorporating the agreed terms and conditions which permit the applicants' registration subject to strict compliance, disclosure, and operational requirements.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for an upscale restaurant.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents regarding parking, traffic, and noise.

At the hearing, the sole attending objector conceded that the proposed establishment would not cause more issues than an unlicenced restaurant and that traffic control was a municipal issue.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to demonstrate that granting the licence would be against the public interest under section 6(2)(h) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence.