Bruce Stanton

The appellant sought a refund of a $100,000 deposit paid for a new home, arguing the vendor fundamentally breached the agreement of purchase and sale by obstructing her assignment rights, providing substandard finishes, and issuing a notice of anticipatory breach.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the vendor did not obstruct the assignment, the alleged defects were material rather than fundamental breaches, and the anticipatory breach notice did not deprive the appellant of the whole benefit of the contract.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was not entitled to payment from the guarantee fund.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar to refuse the renewal of the licence of Sunrise Barrie and to revoke the licences of Sunrise Patterson and Sunrise Homes.

The Registrar argued the appellants were ineligible due to past financial misconduct and receiverships of associated corporations.

The Tribunal found that Sunrise Patterson and Sunrise Homes could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke their licences.

However, the Tribunal found that Sunrise Barrie, having been taken over by an equity partner that stabilized its finances and brought it into compliance, could reasonably be expected to be financially responsible.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to renew Sunrise Barrie's licence subject to conditions.

Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion to add the Builder, Caivan Barrhaven Conservancy Inc., as a party to the homeowner's appeal of a warranty claim denial.

Tarion argued the Builder had a significant economic and reputational interest in the proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Builder's interests did not rise to the level of 'significant' under Rule 3.6 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

The Tribunal emphasized that the warranty scheme is primarily a consumer protection mechanism and that the Builder's substantive rights to defend against future indemnification claims would not be impeded by the Tribunal's decision.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs), a psychological assessment, and physiotherapy services under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment to qualify for IRBs, noting his second absence from work coincided with parental leave.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not provide sufficient medical evidence to prove the proposed psychological assessment and physiotherapy services were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the driver was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle for attending her medical appointments and work.

As the appellant had access to transit, ride-sharing, and assistance from friends and family, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged the appellants failed to meet financial responsibilities, including failing to report new private financing, issuing NSF cheques, falling behind on HST remittances, and failing to maintain a trust account for large cash deposits.

The parties reached a resolution and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the proposed conditions appropriate to protect consumers and ensure financial integrity, and ordered that the registrations be maintained subject to extensive conditions, including educational requirements, reporting obligations, and the posting of a $50,000 letter of credit.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act after it was detained while being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, the driver was not suspended, she exercised due diligence, and the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the vehicle was not stolen as the appellant was a passenger, the driver's licence was indeed suspended, the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the licence status, and she had access to alternative vehicles, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of its commercial trailer under s. 50.3 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing there were no critical defects at the time of inspection.

The Ministry of Transportation officers found that the pushrod travel on three of the four brake chambers exceeded the limits set out in O. Reg. 512/97, constituting a critical defect.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet its onus to prove there was no critical defect at the time of the inspection, despite evidence of prior repairs.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a second-year statutory warranty claim regarding the width of the ensuite shower enclosure in his new condominium.

The appellant argued the 630 mm width violated the Ontario Building Code requirements for barrier-free showers.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the cited Building Code provision applies only to commercial or public uses, not residential uses under Part 9, which has no minimum dimension requirements for shower enclosures.

The Tribunal concluded there was no breach of warranty.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for four items in her new home.

The claims involved unfinished flooring beneath kitchen cabinets, the width of an inside garage door, substituted exterior brick cladding, and basement ceiling height.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that none of the items constituted a breach of warranty under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

There was no evidence of unauthorized substitutions contrary to the regulations, as the agreements did not specify the dimensions or finishes claimed by the appellant, and the exterior colour preference form was not part of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical, rehabilitation, and assessment benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient independent medical evidence to corroborate the applicant's claims of chronic pain or psychological injury, noting that clinical records primarily focused on a subsequent stroke.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, and therefore the disputed treatment plans and expenses were not payable.

The applicant appealed a proposal to review its liquor licence application for a bar located in a residential neighbourhood.

Local residents did not oppose the licence but requested conditions to mitigate noise and disruption, particularly from the outdoor patio.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that issuing the licence was not contrary to the public interest.

However, balancing the residents' need for quiet against the applicant's business interests, the Tribunal imposed conditions prohibiting amplified music on the patio and restricting patio hours to 9:30 p.m. on weekdays and 11:00 p.m. on weekends.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and two treatment plans for devices and nutritional counseling.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to IRBs as he returned to full-time work for three months post-accident and failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The treatment plans were also denied as the applicant did not demonstrate they were reasonable and necessary, with the Tribunal preferring the insurer's medical examination which concluded the injuries were minor.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial notices complied with section 38 of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The licensee applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove two conditions from its liquor licence, which were previously imposed following compliance incidents in 2019.

The licensee demonstrated a change in circumstances, including a shift to food-focused sales, aligned operating hours, and expanded Smart Serve training for all staff.

The Registrar took no position on the application.

The Tribunal found that the licensee met its onus of demonstrating a change in circumstances justifying the removal of the conditions and ordered them removed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her 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 with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had access to reasonable alternative transportation, including public transit, ride-sharing services, and rides from her mother.

As the appellant failed to demonstrate that she had no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, the Tribunal concluded that exceptional hardship was not established and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding several claim items on their 30-day statutory warranty form.

The parties narrowed the issues to seven claim items.

The Tribunal found that claim item 126 was not properly before it as it was not part of Tarion's decision letter.

For the six items where Tarion conceded a breach of warranty, the Tribunal awarded $12,718.15 in compensation, finding that the appellants failed to prove that Tarion's proposed repair estimates were insufficient.

For claim item 71, regarding inadequate heating in a bedroom, the Tribunal found it constituted a breach of warranty as the heating system failed to maintain the required temperature under the Ontario Building Code.

The Tribunal directed Tarion to reopen claim item 71 and resume the warranty conciliation process to determine the appropriate remedy.

The appellant towing company sought a stay of a 30-day suspension of its Tow Operator Certificate pending appeal.

Although the Director consented to the stay subject to conditions, the Tribunal held that it could not grant a stay purely on consent under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, but must independently apply the RJR-MacDonald test.

Applying the test, the Tribunal found a serious issue to be tried, potential irreparable harm to the appellant's business, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the agreed-upon safety conditions.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order (ITSO) issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the appellants' four separate appeals into a single proceeding on consent, noting identical underlying allegations regarding their dealership's financial conduct.

The Tribunal also extended the ITSO until the conclusion of the hearing to protect the public interest and granted an adjournment to facilitate settlement discussions and document exchange.

The appellant appealed Tarion's denial of her new home warranty claim regarding defects in the stone cladding of her home.

Although Tarion found the defects to be warranted, the claim was denied because the appellant refused to allow the builder access to the home to complete repairs during the 30-day post-conciliation repair period, insisting instead on her own method of repair.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the builder's proposed repairs were reasonable and consistent with industry guidelines, and that the appellant's denial of access was unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed and the builder's request for costs was denied.

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

She argued that she exercised due diligence before lending the vehicle to a friend and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she relied solely on the driver's verbal assurance that he had a valid licence and took no other steps to verify his driving credentials.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including walking, transit, and ride-sharing services.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.