Colin Osterberg

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 caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to transport her grandson to daycare, attend school and work placements, and attend 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 available to her, as she was able to use taxis, public transit, and her mother's vehicle during the impoundment period.

Two police officers appealed findings of misconduct for unlawfully arresting two Black youths for assaulting police, and one officer appealed a finding of excessive force for punching a third youth.

The public complainants cross-appealed the finding that the officer was not guilty of discreditable conduct for pointing his firearm at them.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer erred in his analysis of arrest powers under the Criminal Code but substituted its own finding of misconduct for the unlawful arrests.

The Commission confirmed the finding of excessive force for the punch.

Finally, the Commission revoked the not guilty finding regarding the firearm, finding the Hearing Officer erred by failing to consider the Use of Force Regulation and improperly relying on his own experience, and substituted a finding of guilt for discreditable conduct.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

At the time of the impoundment, another individual was driving the vehicle with a suspended licence.

After the appellant presented his evidence at the hearing, the Registrar agreed to release the vehicle.

The Tribunal ordered the vehicle released and closed the file.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a Notice of Proposal to refuse his application for a horseperson licence under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015.

The Notice of Appeal was filed more than a year after the 15-day appeal period expired.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant, granting the extension would prejudice the public interest, and the appeal lacked merit due to undisclosed criminal charges.

The motion to extend time was denied.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after a friend of her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the boyfriend's actions inconsistent with a stolen vehicle claim, as he left the keys accessible, did not immediately notify the appellant or police, and did not press charges.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant successfully used ride-sharing services and other alternatives for work and errands.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal ordered on consent that the immediate temporary suspensions continue until the conclusion of the hearing.

The Tribunal also granted an adjournment to allow the appellants time to prepare and issued hearing management orders, including scheduling a case conference and setting dates for the hearing and disclosure.

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

The Registrar relied on medical reports from the appellant's treating physicians diagnosing her with severe, uncontrolled alcohol use disorder.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including recent hospital visits for alcohol-related illness and elevated liver enzymes, established the diagnosis on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal concluded that the condition was likely to significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke her limited licence and refuse her a general licence under the Condominium Management Services Act, 2015.

The Registrar alleged the appellant acted as a condominium manager while in undisclosed conflicts of interest with service providers, approved expenditures exceeding her limited licence authority, and attempted to interfere with a complaint against her.

The Tribunal found the Registrar established reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant would not perform the activities of a licensee in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal concluded that conditions would not sufficiently protect the public and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the exceptional hardship ground was unavailable to the appellant under s. 50.2(4) of the Act because her vehicle had been previously impounded under s. 55.1.

As no other grounds for appeal were raised, 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.

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

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in her absence under section 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the appellant presented no evidence to establish a ground for appeal, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons.

Prior to the hearing, the Registrar reinstated the licence based on a new medical report.

The appellant did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found the appeal was moot because the licence had already been reinstated, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal in the appellant's absence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle, which was seized when his daughter's boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the vehicle was taken without consent with the intent to deprive the owner.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship, as he had moved in with his daughter to provide alternative transportation during the impoundment period.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship as she needed the vehicle to visit her father in long-term care, assist her aunt, and run errands.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that every reasonable alternative option had been considered and inquired into, such as using taxis, repairing her father's vehicle, or asking her son for assistance.

The appellant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal order closing her appeal file regarding a new home warranty claim, arguing she was compelled under duress to enter into a settlement agreement during a case conference.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to enforce settlements and determined that the appellant's allegations of duress—specifically that the adjudicator told her she had already entered a contract—did not amount to coercion of the will.

The Tribunal concluded an enforceable settlement was reached and dismissed the request to reopen the appeal, as no grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18 were met.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of the appellant travel agency under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed the proposal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the past conduct of the appellant's sole officer and director, which included falsifying airline booking documents, mishandling consumer trust funds, and failing to cooperate with a TICO inspector, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal concluded that conditions would not sufficiently protect the public and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which occurred after she permitted a friend's boyfriend to drive it while his licence was suspended.

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

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's claim of exceptional hardship, finding her evidence regarding the unavailability of alternative transportation to be implausible and not credible.

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

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by previously checking the employee's licence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to take independent steps to verify the licence at or near the time of impoundment, and failed to prove that no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle were available.

The Registrar proposed to refuse to renew the appellant's licence as a vendor and builder under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The appellant appealed the proposal.

The Tribunal found that the past and present conduct of the appellant's directors and officers, which included multiple convictions for building unregistered homes and failing to enroll homes with Tarion, did not afford reasonable grounds for belief that the business would be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to renew the licence subject to strict conditions, allowing it to remain valid only for homes already under construction and to be revoked immediately upon their completion or after one year.

The Registrar requested a reconsideration of a Costs Decision that ordered it to pay $4,000 to each appellant following an appeal of a proposal to refuse their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to reconsider the Costs Decision because the appeal was not fully disposed of before the costs request was made.

On the merits, the Tribunal concluded that the original adjudicator erred in law by awarding costs based on the Registrar's conduct that did not occur 'in a proceeding,' such as the delegation of decision-making authority and the assessment of the strength of its case.

The Tribunal also found errors in the application of the factors for awarding costs under Rule 19.5.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the reconsideration and cancelled the Costs Decision.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 90 days after his son was caught driving it while suspended.

The appellant filed an appeal 18 days after the impoundment, missing the 15-day deadline, and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant without reasonable excuse, and the appeal had little likelihood of success on the merits.

The motion to extend time was denied.