Avril A. Farlam

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after another individual was caught driving it without a valid licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as he had access to public transit, could walk to the grocery store, and received transportation assistance from family members.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached an agreement and the appellant consented to his registration being subject to specific terms and conditions.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to register the appellant subject to the agreed conditions, which included restrictions on acting as a director or final signatory, mandatory disclosure requirements, and completion of an educational course.

The appellant appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) certificate and those of its affiliates.

The Registrar based the order on the appellant's poor safety record, defaulted fines, and the poor safety records of related persons.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in the appellant's absence and found that the Registrar established reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate commercial vehicles safely or in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal confirmed the Cancellation and Seizure Order.

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

The appellant argued she was unable to comply with the demand for a medical reason, specifically because she had recently undergone a lip filler treatment.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish a medical reason for her refusal, noting that cosmetic lip filler does not constitute a medical pathology and the police evidence indicated she simply refused to leave her cell.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for a cracked brickmould on an exterior patio door.

The Tribunal found that the cracked brickmould constituted a defect in workmanship and a breach of warranty under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant sought $22,562 to replace the entire patio door, while Tarion and the builder argued the brickmould could be repaired for $1,491.60.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of Tarion and the builder that the brickmould could be replaced without removing the door, finding this to be a reasonable and proportionate remedy.

Tarion was ordered to pay the appellant $1,491.60 for the claim.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed under s. 48.3 of the Highway Traffic Act after providing a breath sample over the legal limit.

The appellant argued mistaken identity, claiming he was not the person to whom the demand was made.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant admitted to giving the breath sample and that police evidence confirmed his identity.

The fact that related criminal charges were dismissed was deemed irrelevant to the Tribunal's determination on a balance of probabilities.

The appellant appealed a decision denying his claim for compensation from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund regarding a used vehicle he purchased.

He alleged the vehicle had a pre-existing suspension defect that caused it to veer to the right.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the defect existed at the time of the trade, noting the appellant drove the vehicle for ten months and 24,000 km before obtaining an expert inspection, and had cancelled his extended warranty shortly after purchase.

The appeal was dismissed and the claim for compensation was refused.

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

The appellant argued she was unable to comply with the breath demand due to medical reasons, specifically asthma, a recent respiratory illness, and anxiety.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's medical evidence, consisting of a letter from her family physician, to be vague and insufficient to establish that she was medically unable to provide a sample.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the breath technician, who testified that the appellant made 18 attempts without blowing sufficient air, despite showing no signs of respiratory distress.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition report diagnosing him with alcohol use disorder.

The appellant argued the diagnosis was incorrect and that his alcohol use did not interfere with his driving.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's recent two-week binge drinking episode and subsequent hospitalization for withdrawal supported the diagnosis.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded the appellant had not abstained from alcohol for a sufficient period and lacked medical support for reinstatement.

The licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for a missing stone skirt around the entire perimeter of their new home.

The appellants argued that the building plans submitted to the municipality showed a stone skirt around the whole house.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale did not obligate the builder to install a stone skirt around the entire house, and the building plans did not form part of the contract.

As the builder was not contractually obligated to provide the stone skirt, there was no breach of warranty.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a claim for warranty compensation for alleged flooring defects in his new home.

The appellant argued that the "character grade" hardwood flooring installed contained excessive voids, unfilled knots, and surface holes that deviated from manufacturer specifications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the flooring was not defective, as the manufacturer's specifications for "character grade" wood explicitly allowed for unlimited knots, voids, and other natural features.

Relying on expert testimony and the manufacturer's representative, the Tribunal concluded the flooring met the required standards and dismissed the appeal, directing Tarion to deny the claim.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after her estranged husband was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock device condition on his licence.

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

The Tribunal found the appellant's and the driver's testimony credible that the driver took the keys without permission while the appellant was asleep, knowing he was not allowed to drive the vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of section 50.2(3)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellants appealed Notices of Proposal issued by Tarion Warranty Corporation refusing and revoking their qualification for enrolment to build and sell 16 homes.

Tarion argued the appellants failed to properly construct homes, service warranties, and indemnify Tarion for over $350,000 spent resolving warranty claims on two properties.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that Tarion established the appellants' inability to properly construct and service warranties, relying on expert evidence regarding foundation and flooring defects.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the Notices of Proposal and denied the appellants' request for costs.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the vehicle was stolen, as the appellant had voluntarily given the keys to a mechanic whose associate then drove it.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to public transit, ride-sharing, and delivery services as alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for a missing stone skirt around the entire perimeter of their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale did not obligate the builder to install a stone skirt around the whole house, as it was only specified for the front elevation.

The Tribunal concluded there was no breach of warranty and directed Tarion to deny the claim.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had given the driver the keys without restriction, meaning the vehicle was not stolen.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as walking, renting a vehicle, and obtaining rides from a neighbour, and therefore failed to establish exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order and a Notice of Proposal to Revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The parties resolved the issues and consented to the continued registration of the appellants subject to agreed terms and conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, incorporating the agreed terms and conditions into its order.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Suspension of his driver's licence issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for failure to submit a satisfactory medical report.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the suspension was issued under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act, for which there is no statutory right of appeal to the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Remove Conditions on its liquor sales licence.

The parties subsequently reached a consent agreement after the initial objectors were consulted and did not oppose the removal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the removal of all 13 conditions from the licence pursuant to s. 11(3) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019.

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its vehicle, which was seized after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because the vehicle was needed to transport a family member to medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including a second vehicle, rides from friends and family, and public transportation.

Because alternatives were available, the Tribunal concluded that exceptional hardship was not established.