Colin Osterberg

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, that he exercised due diligence in checking the driver's licence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had lent the vehicle to the driver and failed to prove it was stolen, did not take adequate steps to verify the validity of the driver's licence, and had other vehicles available, thereby failing to establish exceptional hardship.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found they failed to prove the parapet walls on their new home were not constructed in a workmanlike manner or constituted an unauthorized substitution under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of fact or law, no evidence that false testimony affected the result, and that the proposed new evidence could have been obtained earlier and was irrelevant to the outcome.

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

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

The appellant argued the vehicle should be released because it was stolen at the time of the impoundment.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test from Marshall, finding that the driver took the vehicle without the owner's consent and with the intent to deprive the owner of it temporarily.

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

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal the 90-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The appellant filed the appeal 24 days late, arguing she initially feared retribution from her abusive boyfriend if she reported the vehicle as stolen, but decided to appeal when she learned the impoundment was for 90 days rather than 45.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that, although the delay was significant and there was no initial intention to appeal, the appellant's explanation was reasonable and her claim that the vehicle was taken without consent had merit.

The motion to extend the time for filing the appeal was granted.

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

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report from the appellant's family doctor indicating an uncontrolled substance use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical reports were internally inconsistent and that the doctor later confirmed the appellant did not suffer from alcohol use disorder.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffered from a medical condition that would significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and set aside the licence suspension.

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 attempting to determine his licence was not suspended.

The appellant claimed he believed a probation order allowing him to drive for limited purposes superseded a subsequent Notice of Suspension from the Ministry of Transportation.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding the Notice of Suspension was clear and the appellant failed to make reasonable inquiries, such as calling the Ministry.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because he did not ask to see a valid licence despite his brother's history of driving suspensions.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant failed to prove that reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle were unavailable.

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

As a preliminary matter, she requested a confidentiality order to omit her name from the proceedings, arguing that publication could negatively impact her position in an unrelated civil action.

The Tribunal applied the Sherman Estate test and denied the request, finding that the appellant failed to prove that openness posed a serious risk to an important public interest.

Following the denial, the appellant withdrew her appeal, and the matter was concluded.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his Class A commercial driver's licence to a Class G licence due to a diagnosis of seizure disorder.

The appellant denied having suffered a seizure and sought reinstatement of his Class A licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including reports from treating neurologists and a family doctor, established that the appellant suffered from a seizure disorder.

The Tribunal further found that the appellant's condition, combined with his failure to follow medical advice regarding anti-seizure medication, posed a significant risk to safety.

The Minister's decision to downgrade the licence was confirmed.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that she had no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she was able to use her parents' vehicle for work and personal needs.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative transportation was available, as he could use a bicycle for personal errands, pay co-workers for rides to work, and potentially repair a second vehicle he owned.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The appeal was filed 10 days after the 15-day deadline.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant and prejudicial to the Registrar, and the proposed appeal lacked merit as the appellant could not establish exceptional hardship.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

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

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because he needed the vehicle to attend out-of-town medical appointments for his severe COPD.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives available, including another vehicle owned by his spouse, rides from his granddaughter, and ride-sharing services.

Because alternatives were available, the Tribunal could not consider the financial hardship of the impoundment fees.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her Class B driver's licence due to alleged cognitive impairment, seizures, diabetes, and hypertension.

The Registrar withdrew the cognitive impairment ground at the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant had a history of a provoked seizure following an aneurysm, as well as diabetes and hypertension, the medical evidence demonstrated these conditions were well-controlled and did not significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision and ordered the reinstatement of the appellant's Class B licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant suffers from an alcohol use disorder, he had demonstrated a commitment to abstinence and rehabilitation.

The Tribunal modified the Registrar's decision, ordering the reinstatement of the appellant's licence upon receipt of confirmation of continued abstinence and a supportive report from his health care provider, rejecting the Registrar's arbitrary six-month abstinence requirement.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had alternative transportation options available, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she knew of her son's prior suspension but made no inquiries to confirm his licence had been reinstated before allowing him to drive.

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

The suspension was based on a physician's report indicating the appellant suffered from alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant continued to drink heavily, lacked insight into his addiction, and had admitted to driving while drunk in the past.

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

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act regarding their new home.

The appellants claimed damages for the builder's installation of poplar stairs instead of the oak stairs specified in the agreement, the omission of side parapet walls, and poor exterior brick workmanship.

The Tribunal found that the installation of poplar stairs was an unauthorized substitution under s. 19 of Regulation 892 and awarded the appellants the full replacement cost of $11,990 plus HST, rejecting Tarion's argument that damages should be limited to the difference in value.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the parapet walls and exterior bricks, finding no breach of warranty as the construction met acceptable standards of workmanship and the appellants had no contractual right to select the exterior elevation design.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed Tarion's decision refusing to extend the deadline to request conciliation for a first-year warranty claim regarding pipe insulation deficiencies.

The appellant argued that extraordinary circumstances existed because it was misled by Tarion and the builder, did not understand the claims process, and was unaware of the extent of the problem.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove extraordinary circumstances caused the missed deadline and that the two-year delay in requesting an extension was unreasonable.

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

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for her online business, to transport her husband to medical appointments, and to take her grandchildren on outings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, as she had access to her husband's van and could use taxis or ride-sharing services.