Geneviève Blais

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

The vehicle was detained when the father of the appellant's children, a suspended driver, took the vehicle without her permission.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant credible and concluded the vehicle was taken without her consent, satisfying the definition of 'stolen' under the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after she allowed her partner, a suspended driver, to drive it.

The appellant filed an appeal of the impoundment seven days after the 15-day statutory deadline.

She brought a motion for an extension of time to file the appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the appellant failed to establish reasonable grounds for the delay and that the appeal had little reasonable chance of success on the merits, as she had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by her boyfriend, a suspended driver, and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the vehicle was not stolen, as the appellant had implicitly granted use of the vehicle in the past.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship, as she had access to alternative transportation and did not prove significant and long-lasting financial loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The appellant, who was the suspended driver at the time of the impoundment, claimed financial difficulties and reliance on the vehicle for work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that alternative transportation was available and that under O. Reg. 631/98, financial loss cannot be considered if the impact of the loss is on the suspended driver himself.

The appellant applied for an additional licensed outdoor roof top patio area for 60 persons at its restaurant.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents and community associations concerned about noise, density of licensed establishments, and potential disturbances.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were largely speculative and related to broader municipal issues rather than the specific application.

The Tribunal concluded that the objectors failed to establish that issuing the licence was against the public interest and directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to municipal conditions and additional restrictions on music and hours of operation.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his application for a liquor licence.

The Appellant failed to attend the hearing.

Evidence showed the Appellant repeatedly sold liquor without a licence despite warnings, drove while suspended, provided false information on his application, and had a history of financial irresponsibility including bankruptcy and unpaid fines.

The Tribunal found the Appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible and would not carry on business in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposal to refuse the licence.

The applicant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming.

At the hearing, the Registrar advised that further information had been made available and the Order of Monetary Penalty was withdrawn.

The Tribunal concluded the matter and closed the file.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant lent it to her former partner, who was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The applicant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship as she needed the vehicle for her children, to seek employment, and to find new housing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had access to alternative transportation through friends and neighbours, and therefore failed to meet the strict criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying his claim that the builder breached a warranty by installing an acrylic shower base instead of a ceramic tile base in his new condominium.

The applicant argued the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) implied a ceramic base by describing a 'site-built ceramic tiled shower'.

The Tribunal found the APS did not explicitly specify a ceramic base and limited ceramic tile selection to the walls.

As the APS lacked the required specificity, no substitution occurred under section 19 of Regulation 892.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal declined to award costs against the applicant despite his failure to disclose his legal training.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The applicant claimed the vehicle was necessary for her daughter's employment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that no alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, as the daughter's income could have covered the cost of a rental vehicle.

The Applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to reverse Tarion's denial of a warranty claim, and requested costs due to late disclosure by the Respondent and Added Party.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the defects were excluded from warranty coverage under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal also denied the request for costs, noting that the late disclosure was inadvertent, did not cause undue prejudice, and did not meet the threshold for unreasonable or bad faith conduct.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the applicants' liquor licence for 60 days following a fatal motor vehicle accident caused by an intoxicated patron who had been drinking at the licensed premises.

The Tribunal found that the licensee permitted liquor to be sold to a person who appeared to be intoxicated and permitted drunkenness on the premises, as the bar was understaffed, patrons were buying rounds for each other, and the bartender failed to monitor consumption.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegation that the licensee failed to deter disorderly conduct in the vicinity of the premises, finding insufficient evidence that the disorderly conduct occurred on the property.

The Tribunal invited written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The applicant day care operator appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal seeking an order to transfer its licence to a new location after its lease expired.

The Director brought a motion to strike the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that under the Day Nurseries Act, a licence is site-specific and non-transferable.

Furthermore, the preconditions for an appeal under sections 13 and 14 of the Act were not met, as the Director had not issued a notice of proposal to refuse, renew, or revoke a licence, and the address on the licence was not a term or condition.

The appeal was dismissed as a nullity.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant lent it to a tenant whose driver's licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The Tribunal found that while the loss of the vehicle caused inconvenience and financial difficulty for the applicant, a single mother, she had access to alternative transportation.

As the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship were not met, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 14 days.

The Tribunal previously found the applicant breached the Liquor Licence Act regulations by permitting minors to consume liquor, permitting drunkenness, and failing to maintain control over the premises.

After considering the serious nature of the infractions and the applicant's positive compliance history, the Tribunal ordered a 12-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence for Jax Bar and Grill.

The Registrar argued that the Applicant's past conduct, failure to cooperate with the investigation, and the heavy involvement of his father—who had an extensive criminal record—indicated the business would not be run with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal found the Applicant uncooperative, his testimony inconsistent, and concluded that his father would likely continue to play a dominant role in the operations.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the licence transfer.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding defective hardwood flooring in their new home.

The applicants sought over $17,000 to replace the entire floor, alleging improper installation.

Tarion and the builder maintained that only localized repairs and touch-ups were necessary, offering $1,800 in compensation.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence that the damage was limited and repairable, largely caused by elevated moisture rather than installation errors.

However, the Tribunal ordered Tarion to pay $2,400, reflecting the builder's revised estimate for the necessary repairs.