Avril A. Farlam

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

The appellant argued she had sold the vehicle to the driver prior to the impoundment, but the vehicle remained registered in her name.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was not stolen, the driver's licence was suspended, the appellant failed to exercise due diligence regarding the driver's licence status, and the impoundment would not cause exceptional hardship as the appellant owned a second vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after police stopped it and found the driver operating it without a valid licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment, as his daughter had taken it to a detailing business and an employee drove it outside business hours without permission.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of the Act, as the driver intended to deprive the owner of its use.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an unlicensed driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as public transit, bicycling, and walking, and had been able to get to work and transport his child.

As the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the vehicle, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was driven by her son-in-law in contravention of an ignition interlock condition on his licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the exceptional hardship ground of appeal was not available to the appellant under s. 50.2(4) of the Highway Traffic Act because her vehicle had previously been impounded under s. 55.1 within the last 12 months.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove all conditions on its liquor sales licence.

The respondent Registrar agreed that the conditions were no longer enforceable and consented to their removal.

Finding a change in circumstances justifying the removal, the Tribunal issued a consent order removing all conditions from the licence pursuant to s. 11(4) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for a Liquor Licence.

Following a case conference, the objectors withdrew their objections on the condition that four agreed-upon conditions be attached to the licence.

The Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to approve the application subject to those conditions, which included restrictions on amplified music, operating hours, and community consideration measures.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual violating an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship as she required the vehicle to attend ongoing cancer treatments and had no alternative transportation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant established exceptional hardship because she had no alternative to the impounded vehicle and the lack of transportation posed a threat to her health and safety.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after she was caught driving with a suspended licence.

She first brought a motion to extend the time to file her appeal, which the Tribunal granted.

On the merits, the appellant argued she exercised due diligence in determining her licence status and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to check her licence status after pleading guilty to a dangerous driving charge.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternative transportation options available.

The appellant appealed an Order to Pay an Administrative Penalty issued by the Registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority.

Following a case conference, the parties resolved the appeal and requested a consent order.

Pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal without a hearing on the agreed terms, directing the Registrar to issue an amended Order.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed the impoundment of her vehicle.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused her exceptional financial and personal hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the appellant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023, as she was merely attempting to re-litigate her case and had alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the Registrar's suspension of his driver's licence due to a medical condition (prolonged unconsciousness/possible seizure).

The appellant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness, made errors of law and fact, and exhibited bias.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no evidence that cross-examination was improperly limited, no errors in the assessment of medical evidence or the denial of a confidentiality order, and no basis for the allegations of bias or bad faith.

The original decision and costs order were upheld.

The appellant rental car company appealed the 180-day impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had other vehicles available for rent and therefore failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, a prerequisite for proving exceptional hardship.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found her application for non-earner benefits was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness, acted outside its jurisdiction, and made errors of law and fact, including misinterpreting the Schedule and substituting its own medical opinion.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the case and failed to meet the strict criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed the impoundment of her vehicle.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused financial and personal strain.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the appellant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023.

The Tribunal noted that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-litigate a case or re-argue evidence.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) denying her claim for compensation from the Compensation Fund for travel services not provided.

The appellant had paid $4,000 in cash to a travel agency for a Hajj pilgrimage, but the agency's registration was subsequently revoked and the trip did not occur.

TICO denied the claim citing insufficient documentation, specifically the lack of an official business receipt.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the handwritten receipt and corroborating testimony credible, establishing on a balance of probabilities that the payment was for travel services.

The appeal was allowed and TICO was directed to pay $4,000 from the Fund.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salespersons.

The Tribunal found that the controlling mind of the dealership repeatedly made false representations to consumers regarding vehicle conditions, odometer readings, and accident histories, and failed to disclose material facts on bills of sale.

The Tribunal concluded that this past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the dealer and its controlling mind would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations of the dealer and its controlling mind, but declined to make an order regarding the other salesperson as her registration had already expired.

The appellant appealed a request from the Registrar of Motor Vehicles requiring her to submit a medical report to renew her vision waiver, failing which her driver's licence would be suspended.

The Registrar argued the Licence Appeal Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the request for medical information did not constitute a condition imposed on the licence under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Highway Traffic Act, but rather a requirement under the regulations for maintaining a vision waiver.

As there is no statutory right of appeal for decisions granting or renewing vision waivers under s. 32(5)(b)(ii), the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant requested reconsideration of a decision confirming the impoundment of its vehicle.

The appellant sought to introduce new evidence consisting of a valid Nova Scotia driver's licence for the driver, arguing it was not available at the original hearing.

The Tribunal found that even if the Nova Scotia licence was valid, the driver's Ontario licence was suspended due to a Criminal Code conviction, and under section 36 of the Highway Traffic Act, he was prohibited from driving in Ontario.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, concluding the new evidence would not have affected the original result.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act for driving while suspended, arguing exceptional hardship.

She claimed she needed the vehicle to care for her elderly mother, another senior, and her grandchildren, and that she could not afford the impound fees on her pension income.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as public transit, a rental car, and assistance from her daughter.

Because alternatives were available, the Tribunal was precluded from considering financial loss or inconvenience.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which was driven by a friend whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, the driver's licence was not suspended, he exercised due diligence, and the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant gave implied consent to the driver, the driver's licence was suspended, the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, and the appellant had alternative transportation options, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.