Colin Osterberg

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for an outdoor patio attached to its restaurant, located on the ground floor of a residential condominium.

Several condominium residents objected, citing concerns about noise from patrons and amplified music.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that issuing the licence was contrary to the public interest, noting the appellant's history of compliance and the fact that the premises would operate as a restaurant, not a nightclub.

However, to balance the needs of the residents, the Tribunal ordered that the licence be subject to a condition prohibiting the sale and service of alcohol on the patio after 11:00 p.m.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal that did not include the decision appealed from or the basis for the appeal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the appeal appeared to relate to matters outside its jurisdiction, and invited written submissions.

The appellant failed to file any submissions by the deadline.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without a hearing pursuant to Rule 3.4(b) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under section 46 of the Highway Traffic Act for non-payment of fines.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a notice of intention to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, noting that there is no statutory or regulatory provision granting the Tribunal jurisdiction over section 46 suspensions.

After receiving no submissions from the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 217(4) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a notice of intention to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, noting that no statutory or regulatory provision creates a right to appeal an impoundment under that section to the Tribunal.

After receiving no submissions from the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his ATV under section 48.4 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a notice of intention to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, noting that section 48.4(13) of the Act explicitly states there is no appeal from such an impoundment.

As no submissions were received from the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to refuse to issue a Tow Driver Certificate due to a disqualifying criminal record.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that under section 16(9) of O. Reg. 167/23, there is no right to appeal the Director's refusal in these circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that directed the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The appellant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by proceeding without his documents or witnesses, re-litigating settled civil issues, and relying on conduct not alleged in the Notice of Proposal.

He also alleged errors of fact regarding his acceptance of responsibility and evidence of a hacked Instagram account.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness or errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The Commission previously revoked a Hearing Officer's finding that the respondent officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct for pointing a firearm at the public complainants, substituting a finding of guilt.

The Commission solicited submissions on whether it was in the public interest to vary the penalty at this stage.

Given that the incident occurred over a decade ago and the proceedings had been subject to excessive delay, the Commission determined it was not in the public interest to order a new penalty hearing or to vary the penalty itself.

The original penalty remained unchanged.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration issued by the respondent under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The parties resolved the issues in dispute and consented to the continued registration of the appellant subject to terms and conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a Consent Order incorporating the agreed-upon conditions, which included requirements for providing clear invoices regarding cancellation fees and reimbursing consumers when suppliers fail to provide travel services.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Notice of Appeal was filed 27 days after the 15-day appeal period expired.

Applying the factors for an extension of time, the Tribunal found the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the period, the delay was significant and unjustified, granting the extension would prejudice the public interest, and the appeal lacked merit given the appellant's admitted failure to return a consumer deposit.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied his motion to extend the time for filing an appeal of a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Issue a Licence under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015.

The appellant alleged the Tribunal erred in its analysis of his depression, applied the wrong standard of proof, failed to consider a peace bond, made stereotypical assumptions, and erred in finding no bona fide intent to appeal.

The Tribunal found no merit in any of the alleged errors and concluded the appellant failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a 10-seat restaurant area within its convenience store located near a university campus.

Several objectors, including local residents and experts, argued that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest due to concerns about human trafficking, sexual violence, underage drinking, and traffic safety.

The Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were largely speculative and lacked objective evidence linking the proposed premises to the anticipated harms.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to issue the liquor licence without conditions, concluding that the objectors failed to prove the issuance was not in the public interest.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a 10-seat restaurant area within its convenience store located near Western University.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review the application after receiving objections from local residents.

The objectors argued that licensing the premises would increase human trafficking, sexual violence, underage drinking, and traffic dangers in the area.

The Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were largely speculative and not supported by objective evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the objectors failed to establish that issuing the licence was contrary to the public interest and ordered the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions.

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

The Registrar alleged the appellant sexually harassed a former co-worker and a customer, and subsequently made false statements to his employer, police, and the Tribunal to avoid responsibility.

The Tribunal denied the appellant's preliminary requests for an adjournment and a confidentiality order.

The Tribunal found the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal concluded that registration with conditions would not adequately protect the public interest and directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to refuse registration.

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

The Registrar brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the appellant's current suspension was under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to meet mandatory vision standards, which is not an appealable decision.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that it only has jurisdiction to hear appeals explicitly granted by statute or regulation.

As there is no regulatory provision permitting appeals of suspensions under s. 32(5)(b)(ii), the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The appeal of the earlier medical suspension under s. 47(1) was found to be moot as it was no longer in effect.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after another individual was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition on his licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to confirm the driver's licence conditions and failed to prove that no alternatives to the impounded vehicle were available.

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle after its president and sole employee was caught driving in Ontario while his Ontario licence was suspended.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal, which the Tribunal granted.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as it unreasonably assumed the reinstatement of the driver's Quebec licence automatically reinstated his Ontario driving privileges without confirming with the Ministry of Transportation.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim, as the statute precludes relying on financial losses suffered by the suspended driver.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for failing to meet mandatory vision standards under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as there is no regulatory provision creating a right to appeal a suspension made under that specific subsection.

The appeal was dismissed without a hearing.

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

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship due to financial constraints and the need to transport her children.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she owned a second vehicle and had access to public transportation and taxis.

The appellant, a real estate broker, brought a motion to strike the Registrar's Further Particulars in support of a proposal to suspend his registration.

The appellant argued the particulars contained irrelevant allegations of workplace harassment and duplicated other proceedings, constituting an abuse of process.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found it had the authority to strike documents to prevent an abuse of process under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that the allegations were potentially relevant to whether the appellant would carry on business with integrity and honesty, and their inclusion did not amount to an abuse of process or procedural unfairness.