Asad Moten

The Registrar of the Bereavement Authority of Ontario issued an immediate suspension and proposed to revoke the crematorium licence of Newcastle Funeral Home (NCFH), which operated a low-temperature alkaline hydrolysis (AH) machine.

The Registrar alleged NCFH engaged in misleading advertising, failed to disclose its use of a low-temperature machine, operated an unkempt facility, and posed a public health risk because low-temperature AH was unproven to destroy prions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that NCFH did not engage in misleading advertising or fail to disclose its process.

While the facility's condition during a June 2018 inspection violated the requirement to operate in a decent and orderly manner, NCFH had since rectified the deficiencies.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence that low-temperature AH fails to destroy prions or poses a public health risk.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to revoke the licence, concluding the 11-month suspension already served was sufficient.

The appellant appealed the suspension of his driver's licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

The licence was suspended after the appellant relapsed into alcohol use following the death of his wife.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was not currently addicted to alcohol, noting his voluntary completion of a treatment program, long periods of sobriety, and compliance with medical monitoring.

The Tribunal also found that even if he were addicted, the Registrar failed to prove it would significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The suspension was set aside.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a Class G licence following a single, unprovoked seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant did suffer from a physical condition that could recur and that it was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a commercial vehicle.

The Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision, upholding the requirement that the appellant remain seizure-free for 12 months before being eligible to regain his commercial licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by her boyfriend, who had a suspended licence.

She argued the vehicle was taken without her consent (stolen) and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had implicitly consented or reasonably expected her boyfriend to drive the vehicle.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no exceptional hardship, as the vehicle was unregistered and undriveable prior to the impoundment, and the appellant had reasonable alternative modes of transportation.