Colin Osterberg

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

The appellant, a low-income single mother of three, argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship by preventing her from attending school, accessing mental health services, and transporting her children.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternatives to the vehicle and that its loss threatened her health, safety, and educational opportunities.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on medical reports from two treating physicians indicating the appellant suffered from cognitive impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from cognitive impairment likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the suspension, noting the Registrar's requirement for a Functional Driving Assessment prior to reinstatement was reasonable.

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

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, that he exercised due diligence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the vehicle was not stolen as it was not taken without consent, the due diligence ground did not apply because the driver was not the intended borrower, and the appellant failed to prove there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle to establish exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class G driver's licence for medical reasons following reports of two seizures.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a seizure disorder of unknown cause.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's condition is not controlled and he is not compliant with treatment recommendations.

The Tribunal held that the condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by her boyfriend while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because she lives in a rural area with no transit, relies on Ontario Works, and needs the vehicle to transport her granddaughter, who has a life-threatening heart defect, to regular appointments and potential emergency surgery.

The Tribunal found that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle and that the impoundment threatened the health and safety of the granddaughter.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

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

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship regarding her commute to work and transporting her son to school and extra-curricular activities.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that no reasonable alternative transportation was available, as she was able to walk, use public transit, and rely on family and friends.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant was caught driving while his licence was suspended due to a criminal conviction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant lived alone, did not need the vehicle for work, and intended to sell it to pay rent.

Since the impoundment only impacted the appellant financially, and he had alternatives to the vehicle and faced no threat to health or safety, the Tribunal concluded he failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had a reasonable alternative available, as she had rented a vehicle and was able to attend medical appointments and complete errands during the impoundment period.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after it was caught being driven by her son, whose licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she relied on her son's word rather than independently verifying his licence status.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant could afford alternative transportation such as taxis and public transit to commute to work.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had implicitly consented to her partner's use of the vehicle and failed to prove it was stolen.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant worked from home, could use taxis or delivery services, and her children could walk to school.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after being caught driving while her licence was suspended.

She argued that she exercised due diligence in determining her licence status and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's evidence regarding her lack of knowledge of the suspension not credible and holding that she failed to exercise due diligence by not contacting the Ministry of Transportation.

The Tribunal also found that the exceptional hardship ground was unavailable because the appellant had a previous vehicle impoundment.

The appellant appealed a decision denying his claim for compensation from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund regarding a 2014 Mercedes he allegedly purchased but never received.

The Board argued the appellant was not acting as a consumer and was likely complicit in a fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the dealership.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's evidence not credible, noting he continued making loan payments for years without receiving the vehicle and engaged in multiple other vehicle transactions for business purposes.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant was not acting as a consumer and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant sought reconsideration of a decision denying his motion to extend the time to file an appeal of a proposal to refuse to issue a licence under the Horse Racing Licence Act.

The appellant sought to introduce new medical records regarding his mental condition.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the appellant failed to prove the records could not have been obtained previously or that they would likely have affected the result of the original hearing.

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

He filed an appeal 100 days late and brought a motion to extend the time for filing.

The appellant failed to appear at the motion hearing.

The Tribunal applied the factors for extending time and found no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, significant unexplained delay, prejudice to the Registrar, and no reasonable prospect of success on the merits.

The motion to extend time was denied.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its 7-Eleven convenience store.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from community members, primarily union members opposed to the private sale of alcohol in convenience stores.

The objectors argued that licensing the premises would increase community harms such as underage drinking and intoxicated driving.

The Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were speculative, general in nature, and unsupported by objective evidence specific to the premises.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions, concluding that the objectors failed to establish that issuing the licence was not in the public interest.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the cannabis retail operator licence of Havok Global Limited and the cannabis retail manager licence of Dr. Gerald Goldlist, alleging past conduct issues involving Dr. Goldlist and his son, Michael.

The Tribunal found no reasonable grounds to believe Dr. Goldlist would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, or the public interest, noting his 45-year unblemished career as a physician and accepting his explanation regarding a 2018 break-in at an illegal dispensary.

The Tribunal also found that Michael was not an 'interested person' in Havok, as he had no beneficial interest, control, or financing role in the business.

The notices of proposal to revoke the licences were set aside.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her ex-husband was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed an appeal 10 days after the 15-day statutory deadline and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test for extending time and found the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant without satisfactory justification, and the appeal lacked merit as she failed to establish due diligence or exceptional hardship.

The motion to extend time was denied.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the registrations of a real estate broker and his brokerage under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Tribunal found that the broker had misappropriated trust funds, falsified bank statements, engaged in abusive and unprofessional communications with clients and the regulator, and made false statements on a registration application.

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

Finding that conditions would not sufficiently protect the public, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to revoke the registrations.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended for 90 days under the Highway Traffic Act following an impaired driving investigation.

The appellant filed an appeal after the 90-day suspension period had expired.

The Registrar brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was not commenced while the suspension was in effect.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, interpreting section 50.1(1) of the Act to mean that a person whose licence 'has been suspended' may appeal, and finding no statutory time limit for commencing such an appeal.

The appellant appealed Tarion's decision denying her warranty claim for alleged major structural defects in her home, specifically vertical foundation cracks.

Tarion argued the claim was settled by a prior release and that the cracks did not constitute a major structural defect.

The Tribunal found the release did not cover the specific claims in this appeal.

However, after weighing competing expert engineering evidence, the Tribunal concluded the appellant failed to prove the cracks materially and adversely affected the home's structural integrity or its use as a residential dwelling.

The appeal was dismissed.