Douglas R. Wallace

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his farm vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded when an employee, whose licence was suspended, drove it off the farm.

The Tribunal found the appellant exercised due diligence by checking the employee's licence upon hiring and having no reason to doubt its validity, especially since the employee was not authorized to drive the vehicle off the farm.

The exceptional hardship argument failed due to the availability of an alternative vehicle.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to refuse the issuance of a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS) licence.

The Director's refusal was based on the appellant's past conduct, including the revocation of a previous MVIS licence, convictions for issuing improper Safety Standard Certificates, and a poor safety record as a Commercial Vehicle Operator.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, particularly the misuse of Safety Standard Certificates and failure to maintain vehicles in good condition, afforded reasonable grounds to believe the MVIS would not be operated in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal ordered the Director to carry out the proposal to refuse the licence.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for squeaky hardwood floors in their new home.

The appellants argued the floors were defective, while the builder and Tarion maintained the subfloor met the Ontario Building Code and the noise was due to humidity issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the movement and noise in the floors exceeded acceptable imperfections and violated Tarion's Construction Performance Guidelines, constituting a breach of warranty under section 13(1) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to repair or replace the affected areas of the floors.

The Appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar cited the Appellant's history of bankruptcy, outstanding judgments, multiple disciplinary findings by RECO for unethical conduct, criminal convictions for violating the Act, and providing false information on renewal applications.

The Tribunal found the Appellant's conduct demonstrated a shocking lack of integrity and financial responsibility.

Applying the Tulloch factors, the Tribunal concluded that conditional registration would not adequately protect the public and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The Appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty imposing $3,000 for three alleged contraventions of the Liquor Licence Act for permitting drunkenness and disorderly conduct.

As a preliminary matter, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to disclose police notes and internal communications, applying Stinchcombe principles to administrative proceedings involving livelihood.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to prove the Appellant permitted an intoxicated patron to cause damage, permitted a removed patron to re-enter, or forced inspectors to leave for their safety.

The Tribunal set aside the alleged contraventions and the monetary penalties.

The Appellant brought a motion for the reinstatement of his real estate salesperson registration pending his appeal of a licence revocation, and for full disclosure of documents by the Registrar.

The Tribunal dismissed the reinstatement request, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the issue had already been decided by another Vice-Chair.

However, applying the principles of procedural fairness from Stinchcombe, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to provide full disclosure of all communications with complainants and clients, as well as the complete investigation file.

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant's husband, who was the intended general manager, had previously rented the premises for events under Special Occasion Permits that resulted in neighbourhood disturbances, violence, and breaches of permit conditions.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant made false statements on the application to conceal her husband's involvement due to his outstanding criminal charges.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was disentitled to a licence under the Liquor Licence Act because there were reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on with integrity and honesty, false statements were made, and issuing the licence would not be in the public interest.

The Registrar was directed to refuse the application.

The applicant homeowner brought an omnibus pre-hearing motion seeking summary judgment, an order extending warranties, oral discovery, and further disclosure regarding a claim for water penetration in their new home's basement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to grant the substantive relief sought on a pre-hearing motion.

The Tribunal also declined to exercise its procedural discretion to order further particulars or oral discovery, noting the respondent had already made fulsome disclosure and oral discovery is not provided for in the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing several claims regarding alleged defects in their new home, including issues with support columns, basement height, insulation, air conditioner placement, duct debris, and a bathroom faucet.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal dismissed all claims except for the bathroom faucet, finding that the other items either met the Building Code, were contractual issues outside its jurisdiction, or did not constitute a breach of warranty.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that her licensed granddaughter was driving at the time of the stop and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The police officer testified that he observed the applicant's unlicensed son driving and switching seats with the granddaughter before the vehicle stopped.

The Tribunal preferred the officer's evidence and found that the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as she owned two other vehicles.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the Applicant's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson due to a prior assault conviction, pending criminal charges for assault causing bodily harm and marijuana possession, and alleged false statements on his application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant's conduct, including a physical altercation that was likely a 'flight or fight' response, did not provide reasonable grounds to believe he would fail to conduct business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal, subject to conditions requiring the Applicant to report the outcome of his pending charges.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealership and two salespersons.

The dealership and one salesperson settled with the Registrar.

The hearing proceeded regarding the remaining salesperson, who had a history of curbsiding convictions, failed to disclose these convictions on multiple registration applications, and sold vehicles without disclosing their salvage or accident history.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the salesperson made false statements on his applications and that his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke his registration.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage on the basis that the added party was not a 'builder' under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The applicant had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home, but also entered into side contracts with the site supervisor for extra work.

The Tribunal found that the added party was a builder because it remained in control of the construction and provided everything necessary to deliver a completed home.

However, the Tribunal also found that the side contracts with the site supervisor constituted work and material supplied by the owner, and any defects in that work were excluded from warranty coverage under s. 13(2)(a) of the Act.

The applicants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

At the opening of the hearing, counsel for two of the applicants requested an adjournment because he was recently retained and had not reviewed the disclosure with his clients.

The self-represented applicant also supported the motion, and it was revealed he had not received the disclosure and his representative was only qualified as an interpreter.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to allow the applicants to properly prepare and retain qualified representation, subject to conditions including restrictions on advertising and providing the Registrar with access to records.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the applicant's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had numerous criminal and driving convictions, unpaid fines, and had repeatedly made false statements on his applications for registration.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible, would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and had provided false statements.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration and ordered the applicant to pay costs of $1,200.

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

The Registrar's refusal was based on the Applicant's recent conviction for conspiracy to traffic cocaine and false statements made on his application regarding his criminal involvement and employment history.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant's version of events on his application was false and misleading, contradicting the facts admitted during his guilty plea.

The Tribunal concluded that the serious nature of the conviction and the Applicant's failure to take full responsibility provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding several alleged construction defects in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed six remaining items: exterior siding, waterproofing membrane, garden door, step entrance, fireplace hearth, and basement subfloor.

The Tribunal found breaches of the statutory warranty for the siding, waterproofing membrane, fireplace hearth, and subfloor, awarding a total of $2,445.00 for repairs.

The claims regarding the garden door and step entrance were dismissed as the applicants failed to prove a breach of warranty.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding several alleged construction defects in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed six remaining items in dispute: exterior siding, waterproofing membrane, garden door, step entrance, fireplace hearth, and basement subfloor.

The Tribunal found that the siding, waterproofing membrane, fireplace hearth, and basement subfloor demonstrated poor workmanship and were covered by the statutory warranty.

The claims regarding the garden door and step entrance were dismissed.

Tarion was ordered to pay the homeowners $2,445.00 in full satisfaction of their claims.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for 18 items related to the construction of their new home.

The items included foundation parging, drywall defects, and issues with the ensuite bathroom.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the claims were submitted after the expiration of the one-year warranty period prescribed by the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that none of the defects fell within the scope of the two-year extended warranty under Regulation 892.

The Tribunal concluded it had no discretion to extend the statutory one-year claim period and dismissed the appeal.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for four items in their new home: sink holes in the lawn, a steep swale slope, thin driveway asphalt, and a sinking cornerstone.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal in part.

The Tribunal found that the extensive sink holes in the lawn were caused by inadequate topsoil compaction and were therefore warranted.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the swale slope (a municipal requirement), the driveway asphalt (no evidence of unworkmanlike construction under the guidelines), and the sinking cornerstone (expressly excluded from warranty coverage).