D. Gregory Flude

The applicant's vehicle was impounded after she permitted a suspended driver to operate it.

She filed an appeal of the impoundment four days after the expiry of the appeal period and brought a motion to extend the time for filing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the four-part test for extending time and found that the applicant had no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant given the 45-day impoundment period, and the appeal lacked merit as she failed to exercise due diligence to determine if the driver was licensed.

The motion for an extension of time was denied and the impoundment was confirmed.

The Applicant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles revoking his Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR).

The Registrar argued that the Applicant was a front for a revoked operator, Brent Groh, and that they were related persons under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant and Groh were not related persons, as Groh did not control or manage the safety aspects of the Applicant's operation.

Given the Applicant's excellent safety record, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar not to carry out the cancellation and seizure order.

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

The trailer was impounded after an inspection revealed it had no brakes due to a detached air coupling ('glad hand').

The Registrar brought a preliminary motion challenging the applicant's standing, which the Tribunal dismissed, finding the applicant was an owner under the Act.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the detached glad hand was a sudden emergency that the driver was addressing safely, rather than a sign of poor long-term maintenance.

The Tribunal concluded that the regulatory scheme was not meant to punish safe operators addressing emergencies and ordered the release of the vehicle.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of its commercial vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an employee whose licence was suspended for life.

The applicant argued the vehicle was stolen by the employee and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the employee had been explicitly forbidden from driving company vehicles and had obtained the keys surreptitiously.

Concluding that the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment, the Tribunal set aside the impoundment and ordered the vehicle's release.

The applicant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend its commercial vehicle carrier's registration certificate and seize its plates.

The parties consented to an order without a hearing under s. 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal ordered the suspension of the plate portions for all commercial motor vehicles and trailers issued in the applicant's name for a period of 15 days, with the applicant required to deliver the plates to the Registrar.

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

The applicant had previously been refused registration in 2007 after being charged with theft from his former employer, the TTC.

Although the criminal charges were later dismissed for delay, an arbitrator upheld his termination, finding on a balance of probabilities that he had committed theft.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator's decision was final and could not be collaterally attacked.

Because the applicant continued to deny responsibility and minimize his actions, the Tribunal concluded there was no new evidence or material change in circumstances under s. 12 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to justify a reapplication.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was ordered to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a drinking and driving offence.

The applicant claimed the vehicle was needed for medical appointments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had other vehicles available and could use taxis, concluding that the loss of the vehicle would not cause exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's liquor licence, alleging that the spouse of the licensee, who had an extensive criminal record, was secretly managing the business and that the applicant had made false statements by failing to disclose his involvement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the spouse was not responsible for the management or operation of the business, but merely assisted occasionally.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence, subject to a condition that the spouse be excluded from behind the service bar during operating hours.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's son-in-law was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for impaired driving.

The applicant argued the vehicle was stolen because he had forbidden his son-in-law from driving it, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no exceptional hardship as the applicant had another vehicle available.

The Tribunal also found the vehicle was not stolen, as the applicant had loaned it to his daughter, who then permitted her husband to drive it, meaning there was no intent to deprive the owner.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration issued by the Registrar under the Collection Agencies Act.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Registrar presented evidence that the applicant falsely answered 'No' to a question on his application form asking if he was currently subject to any criminal charges, when in fact he was facing charges for uttering a death threat and threatening bodily harm.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's failure to disclose the charges demonstrated a lack of honesty and integrity, satisfying the grounds for refusal under s. 6(1)(b) of the Act.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had access to alternative transportation (a rental car) and thus did not meet the test for exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal also rejected the claim that the vehicle was stolen, noting the applicant left the keys readily available and did not report the alleged theft to the police.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for several alleged defects in his new home, including tile floor issues, siding noise, and second-floor sagging.

The applicant argued that the tile defects were symptomatic of a broader structural failure requiring complete floor replacement.

The Tribunal preferred the expert evidence of the builder's structural engineer and flooring contractor, finding that the subfloor was stable, met Ontario Building Code standards, and that spot repairs were appropriate.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims regarding siding noise and floor sagging, as the applicant failed to prove unworkmanlike installation or that the deflection exceeded allowable limits.

Tarion was ordered to warrant the spot repairs of cracks in the tile and grout as originally assessed.

The Applicants brought a motion for an interim order permitting them to carry on business as a motor vehicle dealer pending a hearing into the Registrar's proposal to refuse their registration renewal.

The Applicants had filed their renewal application two days after the expiry date.

They argued that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant interim registration based on statutory interpretation, natural justice, and the power to prevent abuse of process.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no denial of natural justice or abuse of process, and concluding it lacked jurisdiction to substantively vary the Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration into a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims for their custom-built home.

The claims involved alleged defects in concrete drainage, basement floor cracks, door installations, and a granite countertop.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the concrete, masonry, and door issues met the minimum acceptable standards of the Ontario Building Code and the Construction Performance Guidelines, and were therefore not warranted defects.

While the tribunal found that the rippled and scored granite countertop was a warranted defect, it declined to order Tarion to repair it because the applicants had already withheld $12,000 from the builder's fee, which exceeded the cost of repair.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Applicant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspending its Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) certificate for 30 days due to an unsatisfactory safety rating.

The Applicant had previously been given a chance to improve its safety record subject to performance conditions but failed to meet them, largely due to high conviction rates and reliance on consultants who failed to deliver services.

The Tribunal found reason to believe the Applicant would not operate safely but noted recent improvements in a Facility Audit.

The Tribunal reduced the suspension to 10 days, followed by a one-year period of performance conditions.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for a major structural defect warranty.

The applicants alleged that insufficient roof ventilation caused mould growth and potential structural failure in their home's upper attic.

The Tribunal found no objective or expert evidence supporting the applicants' prospective concerns.

Relying on expert evidence that confirmed no mould contamination existed within the living space and that a minor attic issue did not affect air quality, the Tribunal concluded the applicants failed to prove a major structural defect.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim regarding a missing front porch railing and a missing door between the garage and laundry room.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the final grading brought the porch elevation within the Ontario Building Code standard, eliminating the need for a railing.

The Tribunal also accepted evidence that installing the garage door would violate the Building Code due to the grade difference requiring a landing.

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

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002.

The Registrar sent the proposal by email and regular mail on December 21, but the applicant received actual notice on December 28 and filed his appeal within 15 days of that date.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was filed in a timely manner because there were no statutory rules deeming service by email, making the date of actual notice the effective date.

In the alternative, the Tribunal applied the four-part test from Manuel and granted an extension of time, noting the short delay, lack of prejudice, and the applicant's bona fide intention to appeal.

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

The suspension was based on a medical condition report indicating drug dependence and a loss of consciousness.

The applicant had collapsed at home and was taken to the hospital, where an emergency room physician suspected opiate addiction.

However, evidence from the applicant's family physician and subsequent drug screens showed no drug dependency, and the only opiate present was a prescribed medication for a shoulder injury.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not addicted to alcohol or drugs to an extent that would interfere with safe driving.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons.

The suspension was initiated after a police officer, who stopped the applicant for erratic driving, recorded an unqualified medical opinion that the applicant suffered from Huntington's Disease.

The applicant's family physician of 15 years provided medical reports confirming the applicant had never been diagnosed with Huntington's Disease and was medically fit to drive safely.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found a total lack of medical information to support the police officer's opinion and concluded the applicant did not suffer from any condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision and ordered the applicant's driving privileges restored.