Avril A. Farlam

The appellant rental company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its vehicle, which was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence and would suffer exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence as the driver was not the intended lessee and no steps were taken to verify their licence.

Furthermore, the exceptional hardship ground was unavailable because the appellant had a previous vehicle impounded under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant appealed the removal of eight Chihuahua type dogs by an animal welfare inspector under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The dogs were removed after the appellant failed to comply with three compliance orders requiring veterinary care for puppies exposed to parvovirus and other basic care standards.

The Board found that the dogs were in distress at the time of removal due to the appellant's non-compliance with the orders and the abandonment of the dogs in a vehicle following the appellant's arrest.

The Board concluded that the removal was necessary to alleviate the dogs' distress and declined to order their return.

The appellant appealed the removal of her three dogs and the subsequent decision to keep them in the care of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The dogs were found confined in the appellant's van in unsanitary conditions, with high ammonia levels and no access to water.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the dogs were in distress at the time of removal and that returning them to the appellant would likely place them back in distress, given her history of non-compliance with care standards.

The appeals were dismissed and the dogs were ordered to remain in the respondent's care.

The appellant appealed an administrative penalty order (APO) of $315,925.50 issued under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017 for offering to sell and selling new homes without a licence and without home warranty enrolment.

The appellant argued the assessor's calculation of the monetary benefit amount was unreasonable because it divided land acquisition costs between sold and unsold subdivided lots, rather than attributing the full cost to the first sold lot.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the assessor's purposive approach to calculating the monetary benefit and base penalty was reasonable and aligned with the consumer protection objectives of the legislation.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed under s. 48.3 of the Highway Traffic Act for refusing to provide a breath sample.

The appellant argued that he was not the individual to whom the demand was made, claiming mistaken identity under s. 50.1(2)(a)(i).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant admitted to being stopped, asked for a breath sample, and refusing it.

The police officer's testimony and documentary evidence further confirmed the appellant's identity.

The suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which occurred when another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant, who lives alone in a rural area with no alternative transportation, required the vehicle to attend critical medical appointments and obtain basic necessities.

The Tribunal concluded that the lack of a vehicle posed a threat to her health and safety, satisfying the exceptional hardship criteria under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to an episode of severe hypoglycemia.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant suffers from severe hypoglycemia, the condition is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The evidence demonstrated that the recent hypoglycemic episode was an isolated incident, the appellant has exemplary glycemic control, and his long-time treating physician supported the reinstatement of his licence.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her payment out of the guarantee fund.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness, made errors of law and fact, and ignored material evidence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no errors of law or fact, and no new evidence that met the threshold for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying his claim for compensation for financial loss under s. 14(2) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant sought a refund of $296,700 paid to the builder after terminating the construction contract.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant removed the builder's ability to substantially perform the contract by terminating it for his own reasons.

Consequently, the appellant failed to establish that the builder failed to substantially perform the contract or that he had a viable cause of action against the builder.

The Tribunal directed Tarion to deny the claim.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A commercial driver's licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar suspended the licence based on information from an ongoing police investigation suggesting the appellant's licence was obtained through a fraudulent bribery scheme during the testing process.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar had sufficient reason to believe the testing process was compromised by dishonesty.

The Tribunal confirmed the suspension, emphasizing that the Registrar's mandate is to protect public safety on highways and that it was not necessary to prove the appellant's direct knowledge or participation in the scheme.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a mental health condition (schizophrenia).

At the hearing, the appellant brought a preliminary motion for a confidentiality order to anonymize her name and restrict public access to the adjudicative records.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant's human dignity was not at risk and the open court principle prevailed.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, noting her recent hospitalizations, non-compliance with treatment, and lack of insight.

The licence suspension was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after another individual was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for her child to commute to high school in another municipality.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant owned a second vehicle and her child had access to public transit and walking, meaning alternatives to the impounded vehicle were available.

As alternatives existed, exceptional hardship was not established.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a mental health condition.

The Registrar relied on medical reports from the appellant's physicians indicating a diagnosis of schizophrenia, poor insight, and non-compliance with treatment.

The appellant denied having a mental health condition and claimed his symptoms were caused by shoulder pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the medical evidence more reliable than the appellant's subjective testimony, concluding that his condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The Superintendent of Career Colleges requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that lifted a Notice of Immediate Suspension and ordered the Superintendent not to carry out a Notice of Proposal to Revoke the appellant's registration as a career college.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the original adjudicator made errors of law and fact by making contradictory findings regarding the appellant's falsification of student training records and by improperly reading an 'intent to defraud' requirement into the strict compliance provisions of the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005.

The original decision was cancelled and a rehearing was ordered.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized while her son was driving with a suspended licence.

She argued the vehicle was stolen by her son and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the appellant left the keys accessible in her home and did not report it stolen to police.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant owned and had access to other vehicles during the impoundment period.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which occurred after another individual was caught driving it without a valid licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for groceries, medical appointments, and assisting her grandmother.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had access to public transit, taxis, and rides from family members.

The appellant appealed a 90-day driver's licence suspension issued under section 48.3 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing he was unable to comply with a breath demand for medical reasons.

The appellant claimed that his use of alcohol-based mouthwash and over-the-counter cold medication caused a false fail reading.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant actually did provide breath samples and failed to produce credible medical evidence demonstrating an inability to comply.

The Tribunal accepted the police breath technician's evidence that the medications and mouthwash would not have affected the breath sample results two hours later.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The appellant appealed a 90-day driver's licence suspension imposed after he failed to provide a suitable breath sample during a traffic stop.

He argued that he was unable to comply with the demand due to a medical reason, specifically seasonal allergies and a dry throat.

The Tribunal found the appellant's medical evidence, consisting of letters from his family physician, lacked sufficient detail and did not address his condition on the day of the incident.

Preferring the testimony of the police officer, who observed the appellant sucking rather than blowing into the device and showing no signs of medical distress, the Tribunal concluded the appellant failed to establish a medical inability to provide a sample.

The suspension was confirmed.

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle, which was driven by an employee with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the vehicle was taken without consent or with intent to deprive the owner.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant owned other roadworthy vehicles and the owner had alternative means of transportation.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed after he failed a Drug Recognition Expert evaluation.

He argued that his ability to drive was not impaired by a drug and that a medical condition impaired his performance on the evaluation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish he was not impaired, noting police observations of erratic driving, drug paraphernalia in the vehicle, and a blood test confirming the presence of methamphetamine.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.