Colin Osterberg

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed their appeal of the cancellation of their tow driver's certificate for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred by failing to apply the primacy of the Human Rights Code and failing to determine accommodation obligations.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the Human Rights Code cannot be used to create jurisdiction where the underlying statute, the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021, explicitly provides no right of appeal.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she relied solely on the driver's verbal assurance that he was licensed without asking to see the licence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant was able to use public transit and walking as alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claims for major structural defects relating to brick veneer and roof assembly.

The appellant argued that both claims should have been assessed under second-year warranty criteria rather than major structural defect criteria, and that Tarion failed to assess the roof claim entirely.

The Tribunal held that it lacked the authority to reopen the second-year claims process or to order Tarion to assess a major structural defect claim using second-year criteria.

However, the Tribunal found that Tarion had failed to assess the specific roof condensation claim listed in the appellant's form, mistakenly believing it had been addressed under a different item.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to conduct a conciliation and issue an assessment report for the roof claim under the major structural defect warranty.

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

The vehicle was impounded after another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as she relied solely on the driver's verbal assurance that he was licensed and took no steps to verify his status.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as she was able to use public transit and walk to complete her daily activities.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that upheld an Immediate Suspension Order (ISO) of its liquor licence due to drug-related activities on the premises.

The appellant alleged errors of fact and law, including findings related to wilful blindness, the presence of firearms, the test for an ISO, and the reliance on hearsay evidence from police officers.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decision was supported by the evidence, the correct legal tests were applied, and no errors of law or fact were made that would have likely resulted in a different outcome.

The original decision was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Minister of Transportation to downgrade his Class A commercial driver's licence to a Class G(Z) licence under section 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal issued a notice of intention to dismiss the appeal without a hearing on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.

After considering the appellant's written submissions, the Tribunal confirmed that no regulatory provision creates a right to appeal a licence downgrade made under that specific subsection.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized when another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to transport her elderly grandmother to medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had access to taxis, ride-sharing services, accessible public transit, and a second vehicle requiring repairs.

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

The vehicle was impounded after another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant failed to appear at the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal proceeded in the appellant's absence and found that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proving that no alternative to the impounded vehicle was available.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish that no alternative transportation was available, as she had another vehicle requiring repairs, could take taxis, and had assistance from family and friends for errands and appointments.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to file the appeal, finding the delay was reasonable and the justice of the case required it.

However, on the merits, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the vehicle was taken without consent, noting the driver used the keys and the appellant's son did not testify.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied warranty coverage for alleged defects in a new home, specifically the slope of a porch and a chimney bump-out.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and sought to introduce new video evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decision was reasonably grounded in the evidence and that the new video evidence could have been obtained prior to the original hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Fleet Limitation Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act, which restricted the number of commercial vehicles they could operate due to a poor safety record.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar had reason to believe the appellants would not operate commercial motor vehicles safely, given their high overall violation rates, history of safety-related convictions, and failure to sustain improvements.

The Tribunal confirmed the Fleet Limitation Order, finding it to be a reasonable balance between safety concerns and the appellants' recent remedial actions.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence.

The Registrar alleged the licence was obtained through a bribery scheme involving a complicit driver examiner.

The Tribunal granted a confidentiality order over OPP investigation letters to protect an ongoing criminal investigation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's road test was tainted by the bribery scheme, rendering it inadequate to ensure public safety.

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

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend their Class A commercial driver's licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar alleged the licence was obtained through a bribery scheme involving complicit examiners.

The Tribunal granted a confidentiality order over OPP investigation letters to protect an ongoing criminal investigation.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the Registrar failed to establish sufficient reason for the suspension, as the evidence connecting the appellant to the fraud was sparse and amounted to mere suspicion.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was set aside.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend their Class A commercial driver's licence.

The Registrar suspended the licence based on information from the Ontario Provincial Police indicating that the appellant's road test was tainted by a bribery scheme involving complicit driver examiners.

Although there was no evidence the appellant personally participated in the bribery, the Tribunal found that the tainted testing process was inadequate to assure public safety.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant appealed an Administrative Penalty Order (APO) of $63,984.55 issued by the Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority for contravening the Code of Ethics.

The Registrar found the appellant treated purchasers unfairly by charging unagreed amounts for upgrades and development fees, and provided misleading documents to an inspector.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Registrar's findings and the imposed APO were reasonable, confirming the order.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for numerous alleged construction defects in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed 27 specific items claimed by the appellants, including issues with countertops, flooring, drywall, and exterior concrete.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that any of the claimed items constituted a breach of the builder's warranty for workmanlike construction under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was ordered to deny the warranty claims.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for warranty compensation for water-damaged basement flooring.

The flooding occurred due to a failure of the home's sump pumps during a rainstorm.

The Tribunal found that whether the flooding was caused by a defect in the sump pumps or the electrical system, the resulting damage to the flooring was derivative of the failure to construct in accordance with s. 13(1) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Applying the Divisional Court's reasoning in Liddiard, the Tribunal concluded the damage was 'secondary damage' and therefore excluded from warranty coverage under s. 13(2) of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's decision to suspend their Class A driver's licence and the Minister's decision to downgrade it.

The Registrar alleged the licence was obtained through a fraudulent testing process involving a bribery scheme with driver examiners.

The Tribunal first ruled it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the licence downgrade under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act.

On the suspension, the Tribunal found that evidence from the OPP established the appellant's road test was tainted by the bribery scheme, rendering it inadequate to assure public safety.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence under s. 47(1)(g).

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that upheld the Registrar's refusal to issue a security guard agency licence.

The appellant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law by adopting the Registrar's findings regarding corporate control, and breached procedural fairness by rejecting sworn affidavits.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that it had properly reviewed the Registrar's factual findings for reasonableness and had not committed any material breach of procedural fairness.