Colin Osterberg

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial Class F driver's licence for medical reasons following three nocturnal seizures.

The Minister argued the appellant's seizure disorder was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and relied on the CCMTA Standards requiring a five-year seizure-free period.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had made significant lifestyle changes, was compliant with his medication, and had the support of his treating physicians.

The Tribunal concluded the Minister failed to establish that the medical condition was likely to significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely, and ordered the Class F licence reinstated.

The Registrar requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that directed the renewal of the appellant's vendor and builder licence under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal erred in law by misinterpreting s. 38(1)(b)(iii) regarding the standard for assessing past conduct, and made errors of fact regarding the appellant's evidence.

The Tribunal found no error of law in its interpretation of the statute, noting the clear wording requires a holistic assessment of whether past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that the business will be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Review an Application for a Liquor Licence after residents objected to the application.

The objectors raised concerns about noise, violence, and intoxication based on the previous operation of a nightclub at the same premises by a different individual.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not responsible for the previous operation, that the former operator would not be involved, and that the applicant intended to operate responsibly.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence, subject to conditions prohibiting the former operator from having any involvement in the business.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority to revoke and impose conditions on their home construction licences.

The parties reached a settlement and applied to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order revoking certain licences, imposing conditions on others, and requiring the payment of a $60,000 administrative monetary penalty along with the return of over $2.5 million in monetary benefits to affected purchasers.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing he exercised due diligence in determining his licence status and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant knew or ought to have known his licence remained suspended due to unfulfilled reinstatement requirements, specifically the interlock and Back on Track programs.

The Tribunal also found the alleged financial and personal hardships resulted from the licence suspension itself, not the vehicle impoundment.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registrations issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties applied under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to dispose of the matter without a hearing based on consent agreements.

The Tribunal ordered the proceedings concluded on the terms set out in the attached schedules, which included the revocation of registrations for Best Rate Auto Sales and Donald Rezoski, and the imposition of strict conditions on the continued registration of DS Turnaround Leasing Inc. and Roderick Gagne.

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

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because it made commuting to work difficult.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including working from home, borrowing her mother's vehicle, repairing another vehicle she owned, or temporarily living with her parents.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged that the salesperson sexually assaulted and extorted a customer, failed to provide written contracts, and failed to report criminal charges.

The Tribunal granted a confidentiality order to protect the complainant's identity.

The Tribunal found the complainant's evidence credible and concluded that the salesperson's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal also found that the salesperson was an interested person in the corporate dealer, and that the dealer's officer made false statements on renewal applications.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

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

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

The appellant claimed the impoundment caused economic losses due to missed work and prevented him from transporting his daughter for visits.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had no alternative vehicle, the economic losses were not significant and lasting, and the inability to visit relatives constituted inconvenience rather than exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because he needed the vehicle for work and to take his daughter to medical appointments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as he had rented a vehicle and subsequently purchased a replacement vehicle.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse to renew her licence as a Funeral Director Class 1.

The Registrar argued that the appellant's recent criminal conviction for fraud and misappropriation of funds from a youth soccer club provided reasonable grounds for belief that she would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar satisfied its onus, noting that funeral directors handle client funds and the appellant's past conduct involved crimes of dishonesty.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the director's criminal conduct occurred 15 years ago, he had since been rehabilitated, maintained good credit, and was forthright about his history.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant could be expected to be financially responsible, carry on business with honesty and integrity, and that renewal was not contrary to the public interest.

The Registrar was directed to renew the licence without conditions.

The appellants, two related commercial trucking corporations, appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles proposing to cancel their Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) certificates.

The Registrar based the order on the appellants' chronically poor safety records, including high violation rates for inspections and convictions, and failure to improve despite multiple interventions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the two corporations were related persons under the Highway Traffic Act and that their combined safety history provided reason to believe they would not operate commercial vehicles safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the Cancellation and Seizure Order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship and that the vehicle was not driven on a highway.

The vehicle was impounded after police found the appellant's husband driving it while his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternative transportation options available, such as taxis, rides from co-workers, and public transit, and therefore failed to meet the test for exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal also held that challenging the location of the driving was not a permitted ground of appeal under the Act.

Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion to add the builder, Greystone Village Inc., as a party to the homeowners' appeal regarding denied warranty claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Tarion argued that Greystone had a significant interest because it might be liable to indemnify Tarion if the appeal succeeded.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the builder's potential future liability for indemnification did not constitute a significant interest in the warranty appeal itself, as the builder would maintain its right to defend any subsequent indemnification claim.

The appellant sought to appeal the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after his son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appeal was filed 19 days after the impoundment, outside the 15-day statutory period.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Tribunal found the appellant lacked credibility and did not have a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, only deciding to appeal after learning the impoundment costs exceeded his expectations.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle for attending work, transporting her daughter to school, and arranging care for her grandmother.

As alternatives were available, the statutory test for exceptional hardship was not met.

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

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

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing.

As the appellant bore the onus of proving exceptional hardship and presented no evidence, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke T-Dot's Cannabis Retail Operator licence and refuse a Cannabis Retail Manager licence to Manoharan.

The Registrar alleged that Manoharan's spouse was an "interested person" in the business and that his past conduct, along with Manoharan's alleged misrepresentations and financial history, provided reasonable grounds to believe they would not carry on business with integrity, honesty, or financial responsibility.

The Tribunal found that the spouse was not an interested person under the Cannabis Licence Act, 2018, as he had no beneficial interest, control, or financing role in the business.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of misrepresentations or financial irresponsibility.

The Tribunal set aside the Notice of Proposal and directed the Registrar to issue the manager licence without conditions and maintain the operator licence subject to a condition requiring annual review engagements.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a Consent Order without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the Consent Order, incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, which required the respondent to withdraw the Notice of Proposal and the appellant to withdraw his application for registration, with the ability to reapply after October 1, 2022, subject to certain conditions.