Avril A. Farlam

The appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant missed the 15-day statutory deadline, filing her appeal two days late.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, substantial delay, prejudice to the respondent, and a low likelihood of success on the merits given the appellant's access to alternative transportation.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical report indicating he suffers from syncope/loss of consciousness.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence and found, based on an unredacted medical report, that the appellant suffers from syncope/loss of consciousness.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a statement of account (SOA) issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for his seized animals, including rabbits, horses, and chickens.

The appellant raised numerous grounds of appeal, including financial hardship, alleged surrender of the animals, and claims that the costs were excessive and disproportionate to the animals' value.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding the costs were necessary and reasonable based on the evidence of the boarding facility manager, the inspector, and the respondent's expert veterinarian.

The Board confirmed the SOA in the reduced amount of $37,424.44 and denied the appellant's request for costs.

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

The suspension was based on a medical condition report from a psychiatrist diagnosing the appellant with substance use disorder and bipolar disorder following a hospitalization.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from psychiatric illness and substance use disorder that are likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the licence suspension, noting the lack of medical evidence supporting a safe return to driving and the risks associated with the appellant's conditions.

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

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no alternative transportation to access her self-employment, obtain groceries, or take her child to medical appointments, as she lived in a rural area without public transit or access to ride services.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The Registrar requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that set aside an order immediately suspending the appellant's horse racing licences.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact by fettering its discretion regarding bail conditions and mischaracterizing hearsay evidence, including a court Information and a Crown Brief Synopsis.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors were made.

The Tribunal held that it had properly weighed the unpersuasive hearsay evidence and had not fettered its discretion, but rather declined to exercise it to impose conditions.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act due to cognitive impairment and Parkinson's disease.

The appellant and his lay witnesses denied that he had these conditions or that they interfered with his driving.

The Tribunal preferred the medical evidence of the appellant's physicians, who diagnosed him with cognitive impairment and Parkinson's disease and recommended a formal driving assessment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's medical conditions were likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that upheld a Fire Marshal's order requiring the removal of combustible storage from a basement service room.

The Commission found no jurisdictional error, breach of procedural fairness, or error of law or fact in its original decision, and denied the reconsideration request.

However, on consent of both parties, the Commission varied the decision to remove the specific reference to 'tenant' storage, clarifying that no person shall accumulate combustible materials in the service room.

The appellant appealed a compliance order and a notice of removal concerning 22 dogs.

The appellant was hospitalized due to an assault when the orders were issued and executed.

The Board found the compliance order was fundamentally flawed as it was addressed to an unknown person, not properly served, gave an unreasonably short compliance time, and was based on an inadequate inspection.

The Board revoked the compliance order and ordered the return of the 22 dogs and five puppies born post-removal.

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

The parties reached a resolution and consented to the appellant's registration subject to specific conditions, including a two-year restriction on holding management or ownership roles in a dealership and a requirement to satisfy outstanding Provincial Offences Act penalties.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The appellant missed the 15-day deadline to file an appeal and argued he received the notice late.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was substantial, and the respondent would suffer prejudice.

Furthermore, the appeal lacked merit as the appellant had access to alternative transportation, failing to meet the test for exceptional hardship.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Renew Registration issued by the Registrar under the Collections and Debt Settlement Services Act for failing to provide required financial statements.

The parties resolved the dispute and consented to an order renewing the registration subject to conditions.

The Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, ordering the renewal of the registration with conditions requiring the appellant to provide monthly trust account statements for two years and reviewed or audited financial statements annually for four years.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which was driven by his step-daughter while her licence was suspended.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant took no steps to verify the driver's licence validity before permitting her to drive.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no exceptional hardship because the appellant owned a second vehicle that could be used as an alternative during the impoundment period.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which was seized when his father was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant left the keys accessible to his father, implying consent, and that the appellant had alternative transportation options, meaning no exceptional hardship was established.

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

At the hearing, the respondent advised that the vehicle would be released to the appellant that day.

Consequently, the appellant verbally withdrew her appeal, which the Tribunal accepted, concluding the proceedings.

The appellant appealed an Order to Pay an Administrative Penalty of $1,500 issued by the Registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a Consent Order to dispose of the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request and disposed of the proceeding on the terms agreed to by the parties.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a broker under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, directing the Registrar not to revoke the registration but to apply specific conditions, including mandatory education, reporting of outstanding criminal charges, and restrictions on acting as a broker of record.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after it was stopped by police while being driven by her brother-in-law, who was in breach of a condition requiring an ignition interlock device.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the driver was in breach of his licence conditions, the appellant failed to exercise due diligence in verifying his licence status, and the impoundment would not result in exceptional hardship as alternative transportation options were available.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account in the amount of $1,524,640.00 for the cost of necessaries (boarding) for over 200 sled dogs removed by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board found that the daily boarding rate of $20.00 per dog was reasonable and lower than the actual costs incurred.

The appellants provided no evidence to challenge the costs.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account in full.

The appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded because the appellant was driving in contravention of an ignition interlock condition on his driver's licence.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the 15-day deadline, as he ignored the impoundment documents provided to him.

The Tribunal also found substantial delay, prejudice to the respondent, and that the appeal was unlikely to succeed on the merits.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.