Eleanor White

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle had been stored with a prospective buyer under an oral agreement that it was not to be driven until the sale was finalized.

The prospective buyer, whose licence was suspended, drove the vehicle and it was impounded.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was driven without the owner's consent and was therefore 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed an order issued by the OSPCA requiring him to provide daily turnout or exercise for three stallions returned to his farm.

The OSPCA issued the order because the farm lacked a turnout paddock, arguing the horses would be deprived of exercise and thus in distress.

The Animal Care Review Board revoked the order, finding that Section 13(1) of the OSPCA Act requires an animal to be in actual distress at the time an order is issued, not 'deemed' or 'future' distress.

The Board concluded there was no evidence the healthy stallions were in distress when the order was issued, noting that walking in-hand is an acceptable form of exercise and the horses were only at the farm temporarily.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to compel the appellant to disclose the current location of the horses.

The Kitchener Fire Department applied for an order under section 33(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, authorizing it to complete work required by two previous inspection orders issued to the respondent property owner.

The respondent had failed to comply with the orders, which addressed numerous Fire Code violations in an eight-unit residential building, citing financial constraints.

The Fire Safety Commission found sufficient grounds under section 33(4) of the Act, noting the outstanding items posed a severe threat to life and safety, and granted the order authorizing the applicant to carry out the work.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal's delegate that upheld an Inspection Order requiring the removal of excessive combustible materials from her residential unit.

The appellant argued that the 30-day compliance period was unfair given her health problems.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the excessive combustible materials created a severe fire safety hazard and that the appellant had been given ample time to comply.

The Commission upheld the order with specific directions for clearing combustibles and providing access to exits, setting a new compliance date.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal's delegate upholding an Inspection Order requiring the reduction of stored combustibles to ensure clearance for sprinkler deflectors.

The appellant argued he was not personally responsible as he was not the renter, but an employee of the corporate tenant.

The Commission found the appellant had control over the contents and was a tenant.

The appellant abandoned the hearing after being refused permission to record it.

The Commission proceeded in his absence due to severe life safety hazards and upheld the Order, amending the compliance date.