D. Gregory Flude

The appellant rental car company sought an extension of time to appeal the impoundment of its vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded after the renter was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed its appeal 55 days after the expiry of the 15-day appeal period, citing internal administrative errors.

Applying the four-part test for extending time, the Tribunal found no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit and significant prejudice to the respondent due to accumulating towing and storage fees.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The Appellant brought a motion to extend the time for filing his appeal of a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse registration under the Gaming Control Act.

The Appellant failed to appeal within the 15-day period, and the Registrar issued a Final Order.

The Appellant filed an appeal approximately 10 weeks late.

The Appellant failed to appear at the motion hearing and provided no evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for an extension of time and closed the file.

The appellant, operator of a seasonal bar on Pelee Island, appealed a Notice of Proposal refusing to remove conditions on its liquor licence that restricted patio service and music.

The appellant argued that a shift in its business model to cater to an older boating clientele and minor expansions to local commercial facilities constituted a change in circumstances under section 14 of the Liquor Licence Act.

The Tribunal found that the neighbourhood remained largely residential and that a mere change in business model was insufficient to justify removing conditions originally imposed to protect the public interest.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed Tarion's decision to deny a warranty claim on the basis that the request for a conciliation inspection was not made within the statutory time limit.

The appellant argued that Tarion failed to respond to earlier correspondence and did not explicitly state that the time limits were statutory.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the homeowner information package clearly set out the deadlines and consequences of missing them, and there were no grounds to extend the time limits under the regulations.

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

The Registrar alleged the appellant's 2011 US conviction for attempting to firebomb a DMV building demonstrated a lack of integrity, and that his application contained false statements minimizing his conduct.

The Tribunal found the appellant had made full disclosure of his conviction and plea deal, and did not deliberately mislead the Registrar.

Given the specific nature of the past offence and the appellant's history of honest dealings with consumers, the Tribunal concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Registrar was ordered not to carry out the proposal.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles ordered the revocation of the appellant's Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) on the basis that it was related to a previously cancelled carrier, Joyce Express.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant and the cancelled carrier were related under the Highway Traffic Act because they shared a common officer who acted as the controlling mind for both operations.

However, noting the appellant's recent 19-month period without safety incidents and its shift to a local freight-forwarding business model, the Tribunal set aside the revocation order.

The Tribunal imposed strict conditions, limiting the appellant's fleet to one truck and requiring it to maintain a violation rate of 35% or below for 24 months.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims for bowing brick cladding and defective mortar on a new home.

The Tribunal found that the bowing of the brick walls was not readily visible and did not constitute a defect in workmanship.

Regarding the mortar, the Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the defect was localized to the bottom five feet of the wall due to winter construction freezing, rejecting the appellant's claim that all mortar required replacement.

However, the Tribunal found that the repair work caused damage to some bricks and resulted in mismatched mortar colours, ordering Tarion to tint the affected areas.

The appellant appealed Tarion's decision to deny a warranty claim for a crack in the basement wall that led to water penetration.

Because the home was over seven years old, only the warranty for major structural defects remained.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the crack did not result in the failure of the load-bearing portion of the building, nor did it materially and adversely affect the use of the building for its intended purpose as a home.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was ordered to deny the claim.

The appellants, a real estate broker and her corporation, appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Tribunal found that the broker, along with her partners, deliberately misled an investor regarding the purchase price and value of development lands to secure financing while retaining a disproportionate equity share.

The Tribunal also found that the broker provided false answers on her registration renewal applications by failing to disclose her involvement in the development business.

Concluding that the broker failed to accept responsibility and that her conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe she would not carry on business with honesty, integrity, and in accordance with the law, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations of both the broker and her corporation.

The appellant, a motor vehicle dealer, brought a motion to stay the Tribunal's order revoking his registration pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The revocation was based on a criminal conviction for sexual assault and false answers on renewal applications.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the Tribunal's reliance on the criminal court's credibility findings while the conviction was under appeal.

The Tribunal also found the appellant would suffer irreparable harm through the loss of his business and home, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay as the risk to the public was speculative.

The motion was granted and a stay was issued for six months.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to revoke the appellant's liquor licence on the basis that its sole officer and director was a member and former president of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club.

Following a re-hearing ordered by the Court of Appeal, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the licensee's extensive involvement and leadership role in a criminal organization provided reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, despite a 13-year unblemished record in operating the licensed premises.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to suspend its liquor licence.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the parties reached a settlement.

The appellant admitted all allegations in the Notice of Proposal and consented to a 21-day suspension of its liquor licence.

The appellants brought a motion to review a previous Tribunal order directing Tarion to repair water penetration in their units, arguing the repairs were not completed.

Tarion and the added party argued the Tribunal was functus officio.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellants were seeking enforcement of the order, which is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal concluded it had exhausted its jurisdiction and was functus officio.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim regarding the interface between tile flooring and an interior wall in their new home.

The appellants argued that a 5-degree misalignment between the tiles and the wall breached the statutory warranty requiring the home to be constructed in a workmanlike manner.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the variation was minor, not initially noticeable, and fell within the range of acceptable variation in new home construction.

The appellants failed to provide evidence establishing that the misalignment breached acceptable industry standards.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the Appellant funeral home's registration under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 due to financial difficulties, unpaid suppliers, and failure to maintain and produce required books and records.

The Appellant, under new ownership, struggled with regulatory compliance and was placed on cash-on-delivery terms by suppliers, affecting its ability to fulfill pre-paid funeral contracts.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the Appellant was in breach of its regulatory obligations, revocation was too extreme a penalty given the lack of intentional mishandling of trust funds and the new owner's inexperience.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar not to carry out the proposal and instead imposed strict conditions on the Appellant's licence, including the requirement to maintain a licensed managing funeral director and provide a repayment plan for outstanding debts.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims for various alleged construction defects in their new home, including a fireplace fan, wall reinforcement, bathroom wiring, shower stall design, and a garage door.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the majority of the claims, finding no breach of the Ontario Building Code or defect in workmanship or materials.

However, the Tribunal ordered Tarion to effect repairs to the garage door to bring it into compliance with the warranty.

The appellants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their warranty claim for alleged major structural defects in their new home, including foundation cracks, split studs, squeaky floors, and inadequate footings.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that any of the alleged issues constituted a major structural defect.

The evidence showed the home was built in accordance with the Ontario Building Code and the observed cracks were normal concrete curing.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was ordered to deny the warranty claims.

The corporate appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence for 'The Dugout'.

The refusal was based on the criminal records of three of the four shareholders, particularly the twin brothers who had been convicted of illegal bookmaking.

The Tribunal found that the brothers had not fully accepted their criminal past and had attempted to mislead the Tribunal regarding their use of a previously licensed premises for illegal betting.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to transfer the licence only on the condition that the two brothers have no direct or indirect involvement in the corporation or the licensed premises.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship and that the vehicle was stolen by the suspended driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no exceptional hardship because the appellant had purchased an alternative vehicle.

The Tribunal also rejected the stolen vehicle claim, finding the appellant acquiesced to the suspended driver's use of the vehicle by leaving the keys readily available.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship and that the vehicle was taken without his consent.

The Tribunal found that the appellant, who lived in an isolated area and required the vehicle to prepare for an upcoming hip replacement surgery, would suffer exceptional hardship beyond mere inconvenience.

The Tribunal set aside the impoundment and ordered the vehicle released.