Colin Osterberg

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 her roommate was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that she had no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle for her self-employment as a roofer or for her personal errands.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's registration as a real estate salesperson due to his status as an undischarged bankrupt, significant tax arrears, and failure to repay a loan from a client.

The appellant appealed the proposal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible and that his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to revoke the registration, finding that conditions would not sufficiently protect the public.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by asking the driver if he had a valid licence, and claimed exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because he did not ask to see the driver's licence.

The Tribunal also held that the exceptional hardship ground was unavailable because the appellant was the registered owner of another vehicle that had been previously impounded.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her roommate was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as borrowing her daughter's car and walking to get groceries.

Because alternatives were available, the Tribunal could not consider financial hardship, and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a report of a seizure.

The Registrar alleged the seizure was caused by alcohol withdrawal and that the appellant suffered from an alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had a significant history of alcohol use disorder, including recent hospitalizations and a relapse shortly after completing a residential treatment program.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's condition presented a significant risk to himself and others, and confirmed the licence suspension.

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

The appeal was filed at least 27 days after the 15-day appeal period expired.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that while the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was significant and unjustified.

Furthermore, the appeal lacked merit given the appellant's recent criminal convictions for child pornography and failure to disclose Highway Traffic Act offences.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his Class D commercial driver's licence to a Class G licence due to an alleged diagnosis of seizure or syncope.

The Minister relied on medical reports suggesting a possible seizure after the appellant lost consciousness while working in extreme heat.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence only indicated a 'questionable' or possible seizure, not a probable diagnosis.

Concluding that the Minister failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffered from a relevant medical condition, the Tribunal set aside the decision to downgrade the licence.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after a driver was caught operating it with a suspended licence.

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

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she took no positive steps to verify the driver's licence status despite knowing he had previously lied about it.

The exceptional hardship ground was statutorily barred due to a previous impoundment of the vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

Ten X Toronto Inc. brought a motion to be added as a party to an appeal regarding the proposed revocation of a liquor licence held by 1938334 Ontario Inc. Ten X argued that it owned and occupied the premises covered by the licence and could not obtain its own liquor licence until the appellant's licence was revoked.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that Ten X had a significant interest in the appeal and that its substantive rights would be affected by the outcome.

The motion was granted on consent of the appellant and with no position taken by the respondent.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Cancellation and Seizure issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles proposing to cancel their Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) certificates.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellants' poor safety records, which included multiple interventions, high violation rates, and four fatal collisions involving their drivers.

The Tribunal found that the two appellant companies were operating as a single entity under two CVOR certificates, undermining the monitoring system.

Despite recent improvements following the retention of a safety consultant, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants' long history of chronic non-compliance and failure to implement safety measures until threatened with cancellation provided reason to believe they would not operate commercial vehicles safely.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to carry out the cancellation and seizure.

The appellant sought to appeal the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after being caught driving without a required ignition interlock device.

Because the appeal was filed 10 days after the 15-day deadline, the appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and denied the extension, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, an unjustified delay, prejudice to the Registrar, and a low likelihood of success on the merits regarding exceptional hardship or due diligence.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to apply conditions to his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar argued that the appellant's past conduct, including acting as an unregistered salesperson and dealer, and his involvement in a dealership's failure to pay out liens, afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant's past conduct established reasonable grounds for concern, the public interest could be adequately protected by granting registration subject to the conditions proposed by the Registrar for a period of four years.

The moving party brought a motion to extend the time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded after the moving party's friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appeal was filed 34 days after the 15-day deadline.

Applying the four-factor test for extending time, the Tribunal found the moving party lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant and prejudicial to the respondent, and the proposed appeal lacked merit as the moving party failed to demonstrate due diligence in verifying the driver's licence status.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant's golf cart was impounded after his son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed an appeal 57 days after the 15-day deadline expired and brought a motion to extend the time.

The Registrar brought a motion challenging the appellant's standing to appeal, arguing that because a golf cart cannot be registered, there is no 'owner' under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the Registrar's motion, finding that the actual owner of an unregistered vehicle has standing to appeal.

However, the Tribunal denied the appellant's motion for an extension of time, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, significant unexplained delay, prejudice to the Registrar, and little merit to the appeal based on exceptional hardship.

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

The parties agreed to resolve the matter without a hearing and submitted Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal issued a Consent Order suspending the appellant's registration for 12 months, subject to conditions including counselling, educational courses, and strict supervision upon return to practice.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act due to a reported alcohol use disorder.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant suffered from mild to moderate alcohol use disorder, the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the disorder was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appellant had been abstinent for seven months, had an excellent driving record, and the initial medical report querying an alcohol withdrawal seizure was unsubstantiated.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her son 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 would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to confirm her son's licence status and failed to prove there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

The Registrar revoked the appellant's security guard licence and the appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Registrar brought a motion for directions, arguing the appeal should proceed on the record rather than as a hearing de novo.

The Tribunal found that because the Registrar provided extremely brief reasons and no evidentiary record, an appeal on the record was practically precluded.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeal proceed with a hearing of evidence, with the Registrar presenting its evidence first.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the driver had implied consent to use the vehicle, no reasonable steps were taken to verify the driver's licence status, and alternatives to the impounded vehicle were available, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant was caught driving while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, as he had rented a replacement van for his roofing business and owned another vehicle for personal use.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.