Dagmara Szczudlo

The appellant casino appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty (OMP) of $12,500 imposed by the Registrar for permitting a 17-year-old minor to enter and gamble on the gaming site on four separate occasions.

The minor used a valid driver's license belonging to a 19-year-old friend.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's security staff failed to follow internal identification verification policies and ought to have known the minor was not the individual pictured on the identification.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's due diligence defence, holding it inapplicable in this administrative regulatory context, and confirmed the OMP.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after it was driven by a suspended driver.

She argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship as she is the sole income earner and primary caregiver for her two-year-old son.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant could walk to work, there was no reasonable alternative to transport her son to daycare.

The Tribunal concluded that the loss of early-childhood education for the child was immediate and significant, satisfying the exceptional hardship criteria.

The Registrar was ordered to release the impounded vehicle.

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 the appellant's boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she lost her job as a travelling Personal Support Worker, which required access to a vehicle.

The Tribunal found that there was no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle and that the appellant suffered an immediate, significant, and lasting economic loss.

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

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son drove it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The Tribunal noted the appellant owned a second truck that could be fitted with the necessary attachments.

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of the impoundment.

The Tribunal found that the driver, who was staying at the appellant's house, took the vehicle without her permission while the keys were left in the ignition by a friend.

Applying the test from Marshall, the Tribunal concluded the vehicle was taken without consent with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner of its use.

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

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying parts of her new home warranty claim and offering $7,400 for accepted defects.

The appellant failed to file submissions or evidence for the written hearing and instead requested an adjournment due to illness, while the respondent moved to dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal denied the motion to dismiss, finding the adjournment request showed the appeal was not abandoned.

However, the Tribunal denied the adjournment request because the appellant provided no medical evidence and failed to follow procedural rules.

On the merits, without any evidence from the appellant to support her additional claims or a higher payment, the Tribunal ordered Tarion to pay the $7,400 out of the guarantee fund as originally proposed in its decision letter.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle 31 days after the 15-day appeal period expired.

The vehicle was impounded because the driver, the appellant's daughter, was driving while subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The Tribunal applied the test for extending the time to appeal and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed period, the delay was significant and caused prejudice to the Registrar, and the appeal lacked merit.

The motion for an extension of time was denied and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant motor vehicle dealer appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration issued by the Registrar.

The Registrar alleged the appellant breached registration conditions by failing to disclose material facts on Bills of Sale, offering unsupported warranties, and failing to provide a required Letter of Credit.

Furthermore, the Registrar alleged the appellant continued to trade in motor vehicles after its registration expired.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Registrar met its onus, noting compelling evidence that the appellant's sole director continued to sell vehicles while unregistered despite warnings.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to refuse registration, finding that the appellant's conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law.

The applicant, a minor who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, sought payment for visitor expenses incurred by his family while he was hospitalized.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal partially allowed the claims for Uber Eats and Uber transportation, finding that expenses for meal deliveries and travel to the rehabilitation hospital and temporary accommodations were reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal denied expenses for meals delivered to the family's home and the grandparents' home, as well as transportation to unrelated locations.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding that the respondent's actions in requesting further particulars for the voluminous receipts were not unreasonable.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation partially denying their claim for a deposit refund following a builder's insolvency.

While Tarion paid $40,000 based on the original 2016 purchase agreement, the appellants argued they were entitled to a higher limit based on their 2021 assignment purchase.

The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, finding that the deposit was paid in 2021 under the assignment agreement, entitling them to an additional $60,000 from the guarantee fund.

The appellants' requests for costs and disbursements were denied.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle for driving while suspended.

He argued that he held a valid Quebec driver's licence and was unaware his Ontario driving privileges remained suspended following a 2017 criminal conviction.

The Tribunal found that obtaining an out-of-province licence does not automatically reinstate Ontario driving privileges, and the appellant's Ontario licence was indeed suspended at the time of the stop.

The Tribunal also dismissed the appellant's claim of exceptional hardship, finding he had access to alternative transportation.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his Class A(Z) driver's licence to a Class G(Z) licence.

The Minister based the downgrade on an ongoing police investigation into a bribery scheme involving a driving instructor and test examiners, where the appellant's name and licence photo were found in electronic communications.

The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the police was insufficient to establish that the appellant's road test was corrupted, noting a discrepancy in the dates of the electronic communications.

Given the appellant's clean driving record since obtaining his Class A licence, the Tribunal concluded there was no sufficient reason to downgrade the licence and set aside the Minister's decision.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a cognitive impairment.

The Registrar relied on medical reports indicating the appellant suffered from mild cognitive impairment and a functional driving assessment that demonstrated driving errors and a lack of driving skills suitable for rehabilitation.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's cognitive impairment is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The applicant, catastrophically impaired after being struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian, sought attendant care benefits (ACB), apartment rental costs for an independent living trial, a special award, and interest.

The Tribunal found the applicant entitled to the higher ACB quantum of $3,028.54 per month, rejecting the insurer's reliance on superseded guidelines to cap hourly rates below minimum wage.

However, past ACB was not payable as it was provided by the applicant's mother without demonstrated economic loss.

The claim for apartment rental costs was dismissed as it did not qualify as a rehabilitation benefit under s. 16(3) of the Schedule.

Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after lending it to an acquaintance whose licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant exercised due diligence by physically inspecting the driver's licence card to ensure it matched the driver and was not expired before handing over the keys.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.

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

The vehicle was impounded because the driver was operating it while subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by relying solely on the driver's verbal assurance of being properly licensed without verifying the licence status.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to alternative transportation for personal needs and a second company vehicle was available for business use.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to cancel its tow operator and vehicle storage certificates under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021.

The Director alleged the appellant had a high CVOR violation rate, employed an unlicensed driver, and maintained an undisclosed affiliation with a former operator whose CVOR certificate had been cancelled.

The Tribunal found that the appellant contravened the Act and Regulation, failed to meet the prescribed qualifications, and posed a risk to the driving public.

The cancellation orders were confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his real estate salesperson registration and an Immediate Suspension Order issued by the Registrar due to alleged academic misconduct.

At the interim hearing, the Tribunal extended the Immediate Suspension Order until the conclusion of the appeal, finding it in the public interest and noting the parties had already signed a suspension agreement.

The Tribunal also granted a consent request to adjourn the hearing on the merits to allow the parties time to prepare.

The appellant towing company sought a stay of the Director's orders cancelling its Tow Operator Certificate and Vehicle Storage Certificate pending an appeal.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found there was a serious issue to be tried but the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay due to public safety concerns, given the appellant's high commercial vehicle violation rate and recent collision history.

The motion for a stay was denied.

The appellant rental company appealed the 180-day impoundment of its vehicle, which was seized after an employee drove it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional financial hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as it had dozens of other vehicles available for business operations.

The Tribunal also noted it lacked jurisdiction to alter the impoundment period based on the appellant's failure to transfer ownership registration prior to the seizure.