Dawn Kershaw

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Decision confirming an Inspection Order that classified her property as a rooming house under the Ontario Fire Code.

The appellant argued the property was rented as two separate housekeeping units.

The Fire Safety Commission applied factors from case law to determine the nature of the tenancy.

Finding that the tenants shared a single lease, paid rent collectively, provided their own furnishings, and shared meals and social activities, the Commission concluded the upper unit was a single dwelling unit rather than a rooming house.

The Review Order was rescinded.

The appellant appealed the 15-day impoundment of his commercial truck under the Highway Traffic Act.

The truck was impounded after a routine inspection revealed that more than 50% of the brakes' push rods travelled beyond the allowable measurement, constituting a critical defect.

The appellant argued there was no critical defect based on his employee's visual pre-trip inspection.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Ministry inspectors' measurements, taken with the brakes fully engaged, established a critical defect and confirmed the impoundment.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the applicant mail carrier was involved in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant was struck by a cyclist on a sidewalk while standing near her parked delivery vehicle.

The respondent argued the Tribunal made errors of fact regarding whether the applicant struck the vehicle and her location, and an error of law regarding whether a cyclist on a sidewalk was an intervening act.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome of the original decision.

The London Fire Department applied for an order under section 33(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act to authorize its inspector to install a visual and audible trouble signal device in the respondent's multi-residential building.

The respondent had failed to comply with a previous inspection order requiring the installation.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the building had sleeping accommodations for more than 10 people, making the trouble signal mandatory under the Fire Code.

The Commission granted the application, ordering the respondent to install the device within 14 days, failing which the fire department is authorized to complete the work.

The appellants appealed the 45-day impoundment of their vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was taken without consent by an unlicensed visiting cousin and that the co-owner, whose licence was suspended, was not the driver.

The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the co-owner with the suspended licence was indeed the driver, based on the police officer's identification and circumstantial evidence such as the driver wearing a construction vest, readily producing the ownership documents, and locking the steering wheel before fleeing.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt and a penalty of dismissal imposed by a Hearing Officer for discreditable conduct, deceit, and insubordination arising from an unlawful and intrusive search of a female detainee.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in credibility assessments, was biased, improperly denied an adjournment, and imposed an unfit penalty.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the credibility findings, no evidence of bias, and that the penalty of dismissal was reasonable given the seriousness of the misconduct, which also resulted in a criminal conviction for sexual assault.

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial truck after a subcontractor drove it while suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen because the subcontractor used it contrary to instructions, and that it exercised due diligence by glancing at the driver's licence.

The Tribunal found that using a vehicle contrary to instructions does not meet the definition of 'stolen' under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal also found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as merely looking at a licence without further verification, especially when the appellant's usual practice was to check with its insurance company, was insufficient.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The appellant, who was pregnant, permitted her boyfriend to drive her vehicle knowing his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she had friends, family, and cab services available for transportation to work and medical appointments.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment order was confirmed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her discrimination claim regarding the denial of an employment start-up benefit but upheld her claim regarding subcontracting rules.

The applicant alleged new evidence, conflicts with established jurisprudence, and procedural unfairness, including allegations of bias against the adjudicators.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, noting that her arguments were primarily in the nature of an appeal and that the Tribunal's procedures were appropriate.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a person with disabilities receiving ODSP benefits, sought to start a business using subcontractors.

She learned that under ODSP policy directive 5.4, expenses paid to subcontractors would not be deducted from her gross business income, effectively imputing their earnings to her and jeopardizing her ODSP eligibility.

She alleged this rule and the denial of an Employment Start-Up Benefit (ESUB) discriminated against her based on disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the ESUB claim but found the subcontracting rules discriminatory, as they failed to account for the different capacities of persons with disabilities to engage in self-employment and were not justified by the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease applying the rules, pay the applicant's start-up costs, and review its self-employment directives.