Avril A. Farlam

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

At the hearing, the self-represented appellant verbally withdrew both her motion and the appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the verbal withdrawal and closed the file.

The appellant appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension of his horse racing licences issued by the Registrar after he was charged with several criminal offences, including sexual assault involving a minor.

The Registrar argued the suspension was necessary in the public interest to maintain confidence in the industry and protect the public.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar failed to meet its onus, as the only evidence of the alleged conduct consisted of unproven charges and hearsay evidence from a police officer who had no first-hand knowledge.

The Tribunal set aside the immediate suspension order.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment.

The appellant's family physician reported the diagnosis and recommended a functional driving assessment.

The appellant failed the functional driving assessment, which noted profound cognitive impairment and extreme safety risks.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant has a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship due to her employment, medical appointments, and back issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternative transportation options available, including free public transit through her employer, taxis, ride-sharing services, and a second vehicle she owned.

As alternatives existed, the Tribunal could not consider financial loss or inconvenience, and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to suspend their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salespersons under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The proposal arose from allegations that the appellants failed to appropriately respond to a consumer complaint and requests for information.

At a case conference, the parties resolved the issues and consented to an order continuing the appellants' registrations subject to specific terms and conditions.

The 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, a vehicle leasing company, appealed the 45-day impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a lessee whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence in attempting to determine the driver's licence status.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because it accepted an expired driver's licence at the time of the lease and made no inquiries with the Ministry of Transportation to verify the driver's licence status.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, arguing it was stolen by her brother at the time it was detained.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and her father failed to provide explicit instructions to the brother not to drive the vehicle and failed to safeguard the keys, despite his history of driving family vehicles resulting in impoundments.

The Tribunal concluded this amounted to implied consent or a reasonable expectation he might drive it, and therefore the vehicle was not stolen.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant tenant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision that ordered the removal of combustible materials from the basement of her residential building.

The appellant argued that the basement had ample space for storage and distinguished between 'storage' and 'accumulation'.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the basement was a service room containing a fuel-fired furnace, water heater, and electrical panel, and was not designed for the storage of combustible materials.

The Commission confirmed the Review Decision and amended the compliance date.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship due to her need to travel to her two jobs.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had not established that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she was able to arrange rides with a co-worker and adjust her work hours.

As inconvenience cannot be considered and alternatives were available, the Tribunal concluded that exceptional hardship was not established and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship.

The appellant failed to attend the teleconference hearing and submitted no evidence.

The Tribunal proceeded in her absence and found that she had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she owned other vehicles.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The suspension was based on a physician's report diagnosing the appellant with an uncontrolled substance use disorder involving alcohol and cannabis.

The appellant denied the diagnosis but provided no medical evidence to contradict the physician's report.

The Tribunal found that the appellant has a substance use disorder that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke her registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant engaged in a campaign of abuse and harassment against former business partners and other registrants, resulting in criminal charges which she failed to disclose as required.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, including sending vile and threatening messages, breaching release conditions, and attempting to influence witness testimony, afforded reasonable grounds for the belief that she would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the appellant's registration.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a travel agent under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, alleging failures to submit financial statements and required forms.

The parties resolved the issues and consented to the continued registration of the appellant subject to specific conditions, including timely filing of future statements and completion of educational webinars.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, ordering the registration continued on the agreed terms.

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 vehicle was impounded after being driven by an unlicensed driver.

The appellant filed her appeal seven days after the 15-day statutory deadline, citing email difficulties.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found insufficient evidence of a good faith intention to appeal within the deadline, substantial delay, prejudice to the respondent, and low likelihood of success on the merits regarding exceptional hardship.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order issued by the Hamilton Fire Department requiring her to remove excessive combustible materials and clear pathways in her apartment to ensure fire safety.

The Fire Marshal referred the matter directly to the Fire Safety Commission.

The Commission found that the quantity and location of combustible materials in the apartment posed a significant fire safety risk, endangering the occupant, neighbours, and first responders.

The Commission confirmed the Inspection Order but amended the compliance date to allow the appellant 30 days to complete the required actions.

The appellants appealed an Inspection Order issued by the Oshawa Fire Services requiring Fire Code compliance for their multi-unit residential building, specifically regarding exit stairways and fire separations.

The Fire Marshal referred the appeal directly to the Fire Safety Commission.

The Commission found that the appellants no longer disputed the violations and were taking steps to comply.

The Commission confirmed the Inspection Order but, at the respondent's request, extended the compliance date to 90 days from the release of the decision.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that dismissed her appeal of a Fire Marshal's Review Order for lack of jurisdiction.

The original decision found the appeal moot because the underlying Fire Code violation had been remedied by the landlord.

The appellant argued procedural unfairness and errors of mixed fact and law, asserting she had not complied with the order and feared future prejudice in tenancy matters.

The Commission dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no procedural unfairness and confirming that the dispute was moot and outside its jurisdiction.

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

The vehicle was impounded because the driver was operating it in contravention of an ignition interlock device condition on his licence.

The appellant argued that the driver's licence was not under suspension and that she exercised due diligence.

The Tribunal found that the driver's licence was subject to the condition and that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the licence status, relying instead on an assumption.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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 deadline by seven days, citing mental stress and financial difficulties.

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 lack of merit to the underlying appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

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

The Registrar issued the order based on the appellant's poor safety record, which included collisions and out-of-service defects, and its affiliations with individuals and corporations that had previously had their CVOR certificates cancelled for safety concerns.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was related to these individuals through direct or indirect control and management.

The Tribunal concluded there was reason to believe the appellant would not operate commercial vehicles safely and confirmed the cancellation order.