Gary Yee

The Appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his commercial vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was driven by an employee whose licence was suspended due to a Criminal Code conviction.

The Appellant argued he exercised due diligence by asking the employee if his licence was valid, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to his business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that merely asking the driver was insufficient to establish due diligence.

Furthermore, while the Appellant proved there was no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, he failed to demonstrate that the resulting financial loss was immediate, significant, and lasting.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after her boyfriend drove it while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to the financial costs of towing, storage, and securing a replacement vehicle for her commute to work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle and that the financial loss, while significant, did not meet the strict legislative test of being 'immediate, significant and lasting'.

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its vehicle after the owner allowed a friend to drive it, unaware that the friend's driver's licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the owner exercised due diligence by asking if the licence was valid and checking its expiry date, and was not required to contact the Ministry of Transportation to verify its status late at night.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellants appealed an order for immediate compliance issued by the Director under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants served a witness summons on the Director, seeking her testimony and the production of extensive investigative records.

The Director brought a motion to quash the summons.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the summons was overly broad, constituted a fishing expedition, and sought evidence that was irrelevant to the Tribunal's de novo hearing.

The Tribunal also noted that the Director, acting in a regulatory and enforcement capacity, should not be compelled to testify about her decision-making process.

The Director under the Consumer Protection Act issued an order for immediate compliance against the appellants regarding their HVAC rental business practices.

The appellants appealed the order.

The Director brought a motion to extend the immediate compliance order until the hearing, while the appellants brought a counter-motion to stay the order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the Director's motion to extend the order, finding that the public interest in consumer protection outweighed the appellants' business interests.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' motion for a stay, applying the RJR MacDonald test and concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of inconvenience favoured the public interest.

The Appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Appellant argued she exercised due diligence by previously seeing him show his licence to a security guard, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her health issues and work requirements.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant failed to take sufficient steps to verify the licence status before allowing him to drive.

The Tribunal also found that the Appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle and did not demonstrate an immediate, significant, and lasting threat to her health, safety, or employment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which occurred after his daughter permitted her boyfriend, a suspended driver, to drive it.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, that he exercised due diligence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the vehicle was not stolen as the daughter had permission to use it, the appellant failed to make any inquiries regarding the boyfriend's licence status, and the resulting financial difficulties did not meet the strict legislative test for exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle after her daughter's boyfriend drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant had explicitly forbidden the boyfriend from driving the vehicle.

The daughter became ill while driving the boyfriend to a medical appointment, and he took over driving without permission.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had done everything reasonably expected to prevent the suspended driver from using the vehicle, satisfying the ground that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

The appellant motor vehicle dealer appealed the 45-day impoundment of its customer shuttle van after an employee drove it while his driver's licence was suspended.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by checking employee licences annually, though it missed the most recent check due to an internal merger, and claimed the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the 17-month gap in checking the employee's licence did not constitute due diligence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded van and failed to demonstrate an immediate, significant, and lasting loss.

The appellant car rental company appealed a 180-day vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act after a renter was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the defence of due diligence, asserting that its employees visually inspected the renter's apparently valid driver's licence and relied on a signed rental agreement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that for a high-volume commercial rental business with a history of prior impoundments, due diligence required taking the additional step of verifying the licence status using the Ministry's available telephone or online checking service.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The Appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for a multi-purpose event and music venue known as the Matador, initially requesting a capacity of 804 persons, later reduced to 650.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving numerous objections from local residents and the City of Toronto, who raised concerns about noise, traffic, and vandalism based largely on the property's history as an illegal after-hours club.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were overly speculative and not objectively supported, given the Appellant's extensive mitigation plans regarding security, patron flow, and soundproofing.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the licence, subject to conditions including a midnight restriction on the sale and service of alcohol from Sunday through Wednesday, security cameras, and lighting.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant, whose driver's licence was suspended, drove it without the permission of his common-law partner, who was the sole insured driver and primary user.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal rejected the stolen vehicle argument but found that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to the common-law partner.

She relied on the vehicle for her employment as a personal support worker and suffered an immediate, significant, and lasting loss of income due to the impoundment.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

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 leasing company appealed the impoundment of a vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The lessee had loaned the vehicle to a driver whose licence was suspended for impaired driving.

The appellant argued the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of section 50.2(3)(a) of the Act because the lease agreement prohibited use by unlicensed drivers.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that from the perspective of the owner (the leasing company), the vehicle was taken without consent when the lessee permitted the suspended driver to use it.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle to the appellant.

The appellant travel agent appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to file financial statements, maintain minimum working capital, and maintain proper trust accounting.

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 appellant to submit trust reconciliations, provide proof of working capital compliance, and fulfill other regulatory obligations.

The appellant 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 applied for a consent order without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, which required the appellant to repay $24,109.06 to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund, complete a certification course, and abide by various restrictions on his registration.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the Consent Order, incorporating the agreed-upon terms and conditions of registration, which included restrictions on business associations, financial responsibilities, and reporting obligations.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to revoke the appellant's liquor licence on the basis that its sole officer and director was a member and former president of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club.

Following a re-hearing ordered by the Court of Appeal, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the licensee's extensive involvement and leadership role in a criminal organization provided reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, despite a 13-year unblemished record in operating the licensed premises.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

The appellant travel agent appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration issued by the Registrar under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to file annual financial statements.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, which required the appellant to maintain its trust account, submit monthly trust reconciliations, file annual financial statements, and maintain minimum working capital.

The appellant 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.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the consent order, restricting the appellant's registration to the 'wholesaler' class of motor vehicle dealer and imposing various terms and conditions regarding compliance, premises, books and records, disclosure, and financial responsibility.