D. Gregory Flude

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an appeal of a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation to disallow a claim under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting the hearing dates for September 2014.

The Tribunal also directed Tarion to issue a decision letter relating to a specific item in its Warranty Assessment Report, which would become part of the appeal, and set deadlines for document disclosure and witness lists.

The Appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Appellant had failed to disclose past convictions for odometer tampering and issuing false safety certificates on his application.

He also engaged in unregistered selling of vehicles shortly before and after applying for registration.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant made a false statement and that his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal and refuse the registration.

The Appellant appealed Tarion's decision to deny her warranty claim regarding the lack of a railing around a ground floor balcony.

The Appellant argued she was promised a railing during negotiations and that the Ontario Building Code required one because the drop exceeded the regulatory minimum in one spot.

The Tribunal found that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale contained an entire agreement clause excluding prior representations, and did not require a railing.

Regarding the grading, the Tribunal found the drop exceeded the limit by a fraction of an inch in one small area, and ordered Tarion to add topsoil to bring it into compliance rather than installing a railing.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar cited the applicant's past conduct, including a fraudulent financing scheme at a previous dealership and false statements on registration applications.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had engaged in extensive frauds on financial institutions and failed to disclose collection efforts.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's past behaviour rebutted the legislative presumption of honest dealing and ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The Applicant applied for a liquor licence for its restaurant.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents regarding parking, noise, and safety.

The Tribunal found that the objector's concerns primarily related to the existence of the restaurant itself, which was permitted by zoning, rather than the sale of alcohol.

The Tribunal concluded that the public interest would be best served by directing the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions limiting the hours of alcohol service and requiring the Applicant to provide a contact number for complaints and post signs asking patrons to respect the neighbourhood.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the father of her children drove it while his licence was suspended for life.

The applicant argued the vehicle was taken without her permission (stolen) and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the driver took the vehicle without permission and without colour of right, satisfying the ground that the vehicle was stolen.

The Tribunal rejected the exceptional hardship argument, noting alternative transportation was available.

The appeal was allowed and the impoundment was set aside.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a driver whose licence was suspended for impaired driving.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice.

In the absence of evidence establishing grounds for early release, the Tribunal confirmed the impoundment.

The applicants, a motor vehicle dealer and its principal, brought a motion for further documentary disclosure from the Registrar in an appeal of a proposal to suspend their registrations.

The Tribunal held that while its own rules only require disclosure of documents a party intends to rely on, the Stinchcombe principles of disclosure apply in administrative proceedings where a registrant faces suspension or revocation of their livelihood.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to disclose all relevant, non-privileged documents, erring on the side of inclusion, but dismissed the applicants' request to review the Registrar's files themselves or obtain names of former employees.

The applicant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspending its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) for 30 days.

The applicant had previously consented to a 30-day suspension but was found to have operated commercial motor vehicles during that period.

The applicant argued the breach was based on an honest mistake regarding the definition of a commercial motor vehicle.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, drawing an adverse inference from the failure of the applicant's manager to testify.

The Tribunal upheld the Registrar's order for a further 30-day suspension to deter future non-compliance.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of its commercial trailer under section 50.3 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trailer was impounded after an inspection revealed a severed air hose, resulting in more than 50% of the trailer brakes being inoperative.

The applicant argued the failure was accidental due to extreme cold weather making the hose brittle.

The Tribunal distinguished a previous case involving a loose glad hand, noting that here there was an actual component failure and no evidence was provided regarding the applicant's maintenance of air hoses for cold weather conditions.

The Tribunal concluded the trailer had a critical defect at the time of inspection and confirmed the impoundment.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of its trailer under section 50.3 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trailer was impounded after an inspection revealed a critical defect with the brakes.

The applicant argued that the inspecting officer failed to follow statutory procedures and exceeded his authority by ordering repairs before towing.

The Tribunal found that the officer complied with the statutory requirements for detaining the vehicle.

The Tribunal held that its jurisdiction is limited to determining whether a critical defect existed at the time of inspection, which was undisputed, and confirmed the impoundment.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims for improperly installed siding, basement water penetration, and poor paint finish.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the siding met the applicable deflection standards and that the basement moisture was likely caused by condensation rather than water penetration.

The Tribunal also held that the paint finish met the Construction Performance Guidelines.

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

The applicants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their warranty claims for window replacement, carpet defects, and basement insulation in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicants failed to report the window and carpet issues within the one-year warranty period and had unilaterally replaced the windows, denying the vendor the right to inspect and repair.

The Tribunal also found that the basement insulation complied with the Ontario Building Code.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant permitted her daughter's boyfriend to drive, unaware he had a lifetime driving suspension.

While the Tribunal accepted that the impoundment would cause immediate and significant financial hardship to the applicant, the appeal was dismissed because the applicant had access to alternative means of transportation, including public transit and her brother's vehicle.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle under section 50.3 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after an inspection revealed that four of the six brakes on the tractor unit were out of adjustment, constituting a critical defect.

The applicant argued that the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) standards should apply and that the tractor and trailer should be considered as one vehicle with ten brakes, meaning less than 50% were defective.

The Tribunal rejected these arguments, finding no evidence that federal law or CVSA standards displaced the provincial regulatory scheme.

The Tribunal also held that under section 82.1(6) of the Act, the tractor and trailer are treated as separate vehicles.

Since four of the tractor's six brakes were defective, the 50% threshold was met.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation to disallow a claim under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The parties reached a settlement and sought an order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to s. 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order requiring Tarion to pay the applicants a total of $20,000 in full and final settlement of the claims, and closed the file.

The applicant appealed a proposal by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to refuse its registration.

The parties reached a settlement and sought a consent order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, incorporating the agreed terms and conditions, which included strict limitations on the involvement of a specific individual in the dealership's operations.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke its registration as a lottery retailer.

The Registrar alleged the Applicant would not carry on business in accordance with the law or with integrity and honesty, citing the Applicant's purchase and sale of counterfeit TTC tokens and two convictions for selling cigarettes to minors.

The Tribunal found the Applicant engaged in an illicit transaction to purchase the tokens and failed to exercise good judgment.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's proposal to revoke the registration.

The applicant sought a liquor licence for an indoor restaurant and outdoor patio.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application due to objections from nearby residents.

At the hearing, the added party (a neighbour) did not object to the indoor licence but raised concerns about noise and smoke from the patio.

The Tribunal approved the issuance of the licence for both the indoor area and the patio, subject to agreed-upon conditions restricting patio hours, prohibiting amplified music, and requiring the applicant to provide contact information to the neighbour for noise complaints.

The Applicant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for alleged overcrowding.

The inspector observed 48 patrons inside the bar, which was licensed for 29, and 9 patrons on the patio.

The Applicant argued the overcrowding was temporary due to a group leaving the patio.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding the inspector's observations inconsistent with patrons transiting to the exit, and upheld the $1,500.00 penalty.