D. Gregory Flude

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim regarding a plumbing issue where soap suds bubbled up in one side of their double kitchen sink.

The vendor, Arista Homes, was added as a party.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide evidence that the phenomenon was a defect in work or materials or a breach of the Ontario Building Code, as evidence indicated it was a normal result of double sink drainage physics.

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

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim regarding the installation of a Lyons brand whirlpool bathtub instead of a Kohler brand.

The applicants argued that a verbal representation was made promising a Kohler tub.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale did not specify a brand, expressly excluded verbal representations, and permitted the vendor to substitute an item of equal or better quality.

The installed eight-jet tub was deemed of better quality than the six-jet tub listed in the agreement.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim for cupping in their new home's hardwood floors.

The applicants argued the cupping resulted from defective materials or unworkmanlike installation by the vendor.

Tarion and the vendor contended the minor cupping was caused by the applicants' failure to properly control humidity in the home.

The Tribunal found the applicants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the cupping arose from a defect in materials or workmanship, noting evidence of poor humidity control by the homeowners.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming refusing to remove conditions on its liquor licence that prohibited live or amplified music on the patio and required the patio to close at 11:00 p.m.

The applicant presented evidence that the patio had been relocated from facing a residential street to facing a commercial area, directing noise away from residences.

The Tribunal found this constituted a change of circumstances under section 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act and ordered the Registrar to remove the conditions.

The Applicant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The Registrar argued that the Applicant was controlled by an individual whose previous trucking companies had their CVOR certificates cancelled due to catastrophic safety records.

The Tribunal found that the individual in question did control or manage the Applicant, making him a related person under the Highway Traffic Act.

Considering the combined safety record, the Tribunal concluded there was reason to believe the Applicant would not operate safely and ordered the cancellation of the CVOR certificate.

The applicant sought a liquor licence for an outdoor patio at its restaurant, which was opposed by local residents concerned about noise from amplified music and late-night conversation.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions, including ceasing alcohol service at 10:30 p.m., prohibiting amplified music after 10:00 p.m., and requiring the applicant to provide a contact number for noise complaints.

The applicants appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' orders suspending the CVOR certificate of the applicant company for 30 days and refusing to issue a CVOR certificate to a related applicant company.

The Tribunal found that the applicant company had an abysmal safety record with a violation rate of 136.3%, justifying the 30-day suspension.

The Tribunal also found that the related applicant company was a related person to the applicant company and upheld the Registrar's refusal to issue it a CVOR certificate.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a Consent Order without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the Consent Order, restricting the applicant's registration to the 'Wholesaler' class and imposing various conditions regarding trading, record-keeping, premises, and disclosure.

The Applicants appealed a proposal by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Tribunal heard evidence of numerous consumer complaints involving failures to disclose vehicle damage history, failures to provide proper bills of sale, and failures to honour statutory warranties of fitness.

The Tribunal found the individual Applicant lacked credibility, noting he had forged a consumer's signature on a bill of sale and submitted a doctored CarProof report to the Tribunal.

Concluding that the Applicants' past conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe they would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and that they had breached conditions of registration, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a Consent Order without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the proceedings concluded on the basis of the agreed terms and conditions, which included requirements regarding salespersons, advertising, books and records, premises, disclosure, and financial responsibility.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's travel agent registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, incorporating the Minutes of Settlement which required the applicant to submit monthly trust reconciliations, maintain minimum working capital, and comply with other financial reporting conditions.

The applicant, a registered travel agent, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to maintain a trust account and minimum working capital.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, which required the applicant to submit manager application documents, file annual financial statements, and maintain minimum working capital.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for several items in their new home under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered preliminary motions regarding the admissibility of a supplemental decision letter and the re-litigation of a hardwood flooring claim, admitting the letter but barring the flooring claim.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the foundation crack, stipple ceiling repairs, roof shingles, and site grading were not defective and dismissed those claims.

However, the Tribunal found that the premature deterioration of the front porch concrete finish was a defect and ordered Tarion to warrant the repair, along with other items conceded during the hearing.