E. Alan Garbe

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims for a cracked granite countertop and a defective main staircase in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the cracked countertop was a warranted defect, noting the builder's prior offer to replace it as evidence of a pre-existing defect, despite its omission from the pre-delivery inspection report.

The tribunal dismissed the claim regarding the staircase due to insufficient evidence of a defect.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the builder was ordered to replace the countertop.

The Appellant brought a motion to compel the Respondent to abide by a pre-hearing consent order that allowed the Appellant to register as a vendor under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion to vary or read down the order, arguing that new information from the Elliot Lake Inquiry report regarding the Appellant's principal raised serious concerns about honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal found that the new information constituted changed circumstances that provided reasonable grounds to question the correctness of the consent order.

The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's motion and amended the pre-hearing order to delete the consent provision and broaden the scope of the upcoming hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying several claims regarding alleged defects in their new home, including countertop swelling, railing discolouration, dryer vibration, missing shingles, and brick quality.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claims that there were warrantable defects.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claims in full.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its indoor premises.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving community objections.

The objectors raised concerns about increased density of licensed establishments, noise, parking, and disturbances.

The Tribunal found the objectors' concerns to be speculative and noted that parking and density are municipal zoning matters.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to conditions agreed upon by the appellant and the City of Toronto.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Order by the Registrar to refuse her registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the appellant be registered as a Business Manager subject to terms and conditions, including that she not be a partner, shareholder, officer, director, or controlling mind of a dealer.

The applicant appealed a $1,000 monetary penalty imposed by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for permitting drunkenness on its licensed premises.

Inspectors observed a patron who had vomited, passed out, and exhibited signs of severe intoxication.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the patron was drunk and that the applicant's security staff, who walked by the patron multiple times without intervening, knew or ought to have known of his condition.

The appeal was dismissed and the monetary penalty was confirmed.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued an order imposing two $1,000 monetary penalties against the applicant licence holder for permitting drunkenness on its premises on two separate occasions.

On appeal, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found that on the first occasion, the patron was drunk and the applicant knew or ought to have known of the intoxication, confirming the penalty.

On the second occasion, while the patron was found to be drunk, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant knew or ought to have known, as the determinative actions occurred in the washroom away from staff.

The Tribunal confirmed the first penalty and set aside the second.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act proposed to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealer and its salesperson due to numerous compliance failures, including operating from an unapproved location, using non-compliant bills of sale, failing to disclose material facts, and poor record-keeping.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicants' conduct was extremely sloppy, it did not demonstrate an intentional disregard for the law or a lack of integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal, but imposed strict conditions on the applicants' registrations, including mandatory training and the appointment of a monitor.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims for cracked and cupped hardwood flooring and a central vacuum hose that was too short.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicants were not precluded from claiming for 'cupped' boards despite not using that exact term initially.

However, because the applicants only reported two cracked boards within the one-year warranty period, claims for additional boards discovered later were dismissed.

The tribunal also found that obtaining a vacuum hose of the correct length was the homeowners' responsibility.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle inspection mechanic under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Director alleged that the Applicant had issued inspection certificates without performing proper inspections and signed certificates on behalf of the licensee without authorization.

The Tribunal found the Applicant's testimony contradictory and concluded that his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not act in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

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

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for an outdoor patio accommodating 18 persons.

The adjacent business owner objected, arguing the patio would exacerbate existing parking shortages and second-hand smoke issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the patio might increase existing problems, it did not create new ones, and the patio had been approved by the City.

The objector failed to prove that granting the licence was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence, subject to a condition prohibiting smoking on the patio.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the Applicant's liquor licence for 14 days for allegedly permitting underage drinking, failing to inspect identification, and permitting drunkenness.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence that underage persons were served or consumed alcohol on the premises.

However, the Tribunal found that the Applicant permitted drunkenness, as a patron exhibited clear signs of intoxication and vomiting without intervention from staff.

The parties were invited to make written submissions on sanctions.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing their claim for water penetration in two basement storage rooms under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The applicants argued that moisture in the rooms constituted a major structural defect, estimating repair costs at $50,000.

Tarion's representative testified that the moisture was due to condensation, which is excluded from warranty coverage under the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to prove the existence of a warranted defect and confirmed Tarion's decision to disallow the claim.

The Added Party's request for costs was dismissed.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing their claim for a sewer smell in their new home's main bathroom sink.

The applicants alleged the smell was due to a defect in materials or workmanship.

The Tribunal accepted expert plumbing evidence that the plumbing was in proper condition, the debris in the trap was normal, and the smell could be resolved through regular homeowner maintenance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.