Colin Osterberg

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed their appeal for compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

They argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by disregarding their legal submissions, which the Tribunal had found contained hallucinated and misquoted case law.

They also alleged errors of fact and law regarding a fireplace substitution, column sizes, patio doors, and porch cladding.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the appellants were improperly attempting to re-litigate the Tribunal's findings of fact and law.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while there was no evidence the appellant personally participated in or knew of the bribery, the testing process was tainted and inadequate to ensure public safety.

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

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 dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant owned a second vehicle (a 2024 Dodge truck) that could satisfy all of her family's transportation needs.

As the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, she could not prove exceptional hardship.

The appellant brought a motion seeking a stay of the suspension of his Class A driver's licence pending his appeal.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles had suspended the licence for 90 days.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting a stay.

The appellant did not provide sufficient evidence that his financial losses were irrevocable or could not be mitigated.

The motion for a stay was denied.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Renew its licence under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The Registrar alleged the appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible due to the loss of project financing and the improper use of unavoidable delay provisions to retain purchaser deposits.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's loss of financing, acts of default, and unreasonable reliance on pandemic-related unavoidable delay to avoid refunding deposits provided reasonable grounds to believe it would not be financially responsible.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the refusal to renew.

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its business manager, 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.

The Tribunal held a hearing to determine whether the ITSO should be extended pending the conclusion of the appeal.

The Registrar presented evidence of the appellants' failure to pay out a lien, failure to honour a consignment agreement, failure to comply with requests for information, and multiple significant violations found during inspections.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established a reasonable basis for the allegations and that it was in the public interest to extend the ITSO until the conclusion of the hearing.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order (ITSO) against the appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its salesperson.

The appellants appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Registrar sought to extend the ITSO pending the hearing, citing the appellants' negative bank balances and failure to purchase extended warranties paid for by customers.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the appellants' financial position posed a risk to the public, but concluded that the failure to provide purchased warranties and the attempt to retain the funds justified extending the ITSO in the public interest.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she only glanced at the driver's licence without checking its expiry date or verifying its status.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant and her daughter had access to alternative transportation such as remote work, taxis, and rides from others.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a reported medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant had a history of alcohol use disorder, the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the condition was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence of abstinence and her family doctor's recommendation for reinstatement.

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

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in her absence and found that the Registrar established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition, specifically schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder, which is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding a breach of warranty claim for water penetration in their home's foundation.

Tarion had paid $115,544 to a contractor for repairs that failed to resolve the issue, and offered the remaining $124,336 up to the $300,000 statutory limit.

The appellants argued the contractor payment should not count towards the limit as they received no benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that under section 14(6) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, the amount paid by Tarion for repairs must be included in calculating the statutory limit, and ordered Tarion to pay the remaining $124,336.

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

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

The appellant claimed she needed the vehicle to take her infant son to medical appointments and to attend college classes.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives available, such as public transit and assistance from her mother, and therefore failed to establish exceptional hardship.

The Registrar of Private Investigators and Security Guards brought a motion to determine the procedure for an appeal by Euroworld Corporation against the refusal of its security guard agency licence.

The Registrar argued the appeal should proceed on the record with deference to its decision, while the appellant sought a hearing de novo.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal interpreted the Private Security and Investigative Services Act and concluded that the statutory scheme, which requires the Registrar to hold a show cause hearing governed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, indicates legislative intent for an appeal on the record.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeal proceed on the record and that the appellant bears the onus of proving the Registrar's decision was unreasonable.

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

The vehicle was impounded after a third party, who had been permitted to drive by the person who rented the vehicle from the appellant, was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant could not rely on the due diligence defence because he had relinquished control of the vehicle and could not verify the driver's licence status.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship argument, as the appellant had other unrented vehicles available to mitigate any loss of rental income.

The appellant appealed a $2,750 monetary penalty imposed by the Registrar for breaches of the liquor licence regulations at Devon House Bar and Nightclub.

The Registrar alleged that on two dates in June 2024, the establishment failed to clear evidence of liquor within 45 minutes after the end of service hours, and on one date, served liquor outside prescribed hours.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the evidence of the inspectors credible and established the contraventions on a balance of probabilities.

The monetary penalty was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her partner was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She argued that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that his licence was not suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the validity of the driver's licence, as she merely assumed it was valid and had only previously looked at it to verify his age.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles regarding their Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificates.

The Tribunal found that the two appellant companies were related through a common director.

The Tribunal determined that the Registrar had reason to believe the appellants would not operate commercial vehicles safely, citing a chronic history of non-compliance, an overall violation rate exceeding 400%, inadequate action plans, and the director's involvement in other non-compliant trucking companies.

The Tribunal confirmed the cancellation order, finding it was the only sufficient outcome to protect public safety.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after he was caught driving while his licence was suspended.

He filed an appeal 30 days after the impoundment, missing the 15-day deadline, and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant, and the appeal lacked merit because the economic hardship would only affect the suspended driver, which is precluded by the regulation.

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 prove that no alternative transportation was available, as she had access to another vehicle and assistance from family and friends.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence for 30 days and attach a condition requiring metal detectors at all entrances.

The Registrar alleged the appellant permitted disorderly conduct after a shooting occurred on the crowded premises, and failed to facilitate inspections by withholding surveillance video.

The Tribunal found the appellant knew of the risk of disorderly conduct but failed to take reasonable security measures, such as adequate searches of patrons.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the 30-day suspension and impose the metal detector condition, emphasizing the paramountcy of public safety.