Geneviève Painchaud

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to review its application for a liquor licence for its outdoor patios.

The Registrar issued the notice after receiving objections from immediate neighbours concerned about noise and the impact on their residential neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that issuing the licence was contrary to the public interest, noting the historical use of the patio and the commercial nature of the surrounding area.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions limiting hours of operation and amplified music to address the neighbours' concerns.

The appellants appealed administrative penalty orders issued by the Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority for selling a new home without a licence.

The appellants purchased a pre-construction home, took possession, and listed it for sale within days without ever occupying it.

The Tribunal found the appellants acted as unlicensed vendors in contravention of the New Home Construction Licencing Act, 2017.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' arguments that the investigation was procedurally unfair and violated their Charter rights.

However, the Tribunal varied the administrative penalty from $99,150.77 to $66,492.13 per appellant to account for additional costs incurred during the sale.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order (ITSO) under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered that the two appeals be combined into a single proceeding pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal also extended the ITSO for the dealership until the conclusion of the hearing to protect the public interest, while the ITSO for the appellant as a salesperson was no longer sought.

The hearing was adjourned to a case conference to facilitate settlement discussions.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on medical reports indicating the appellant suffered from a cognitive impairment following a hospitalization for sepsis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence established the appellant likely suffered from a cognitive impairment that significantly interfered with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the suspension, noting that a satisfactory functional driving assessment would be required for reinstatement.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded because the appellant was driving while his Ontario driver's licence was suspended.

The appellant argued he held a valid British Columbia driver's licence and was unaware his Ontario licence remained suspended from a 2002 impaired driving conviction due to his failure to complete a remedial program.

The Tribunal found that under s. 36 of the Act, a person suspended in Ontario cannot drive in Ontario using an out-of-province licence.

The Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding the licence was legally suspended at the time.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship to his concrete business.

The appellant admitted to knowingly driving while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as renting a commercial vehicle.

Furthermore, as the suspended driver, he was precluded from relying on economic loss as a ground for hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited minors on the premises after 7:00 p.m., except as performers.

The condition was originally imposed 28 years ago due to a disciplinary issue involving a previous, unrelated licensee.

The respondent consented to the removal of the condition.

The Tribunal found that the passage of time, the change in ownership, and the shift in the venue's target audience constituted a change in circumstances making the condition no longer appropriate.

The application was granted and the condition was removed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after her boyfriend was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternatives for transportation to work, and that the loss of the vehicle was immediate, significant, and lasting.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for plumbing noise in a new home.

The appellant alleged that noise from an upstairs shower heard in an adjacent bedroom constituted a defect.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide objective evidence or industry standards demonstrating that the noise amounted to a defect or a breach of the Ontario Building Code.

The appeal was dismissed and the claim denied.

The appellants appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' orders cancelling their Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) and seizing their commercial vehicle plates.

The Registrar issued the orders based on the appellants' unacceptable safety record, which included an Overall Violation Rate of 164.78% due to numerous collisions, convictions, and inspection defects.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants failed to demonstrate a concrete plan to improve safety and had a history of non-compliance despite previous interventions.

The Tribunal concluded there was reason to believe the appellants would not operate commercial vehicles safely and confirmed the Registrar's cancellation and seizure orders.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under s. 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code offence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had access to public transit, rides from family, and ride-sharing services.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain caused by the accident, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for an orthopaedic assessment and a physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment plan, finding them reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments, but the applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was denied as the insurer's conduct was not excessively imprudent or stubborn.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a friend whose licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she took no steps to verify her friend's licence status before leaving her keys accessible.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had reasonable alternative transportation options available.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their second-year warranty claim for three items.

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing and set deadlines for submissions.

The appellants failed to file any submissions or evidence by the deadline and did not request an adjournment.

The Tribunal proceeded in their absence under section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to meet their evidentiary burden.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their second-year warranty claim for 17 items.

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing, but the appellants failed to file any submissions or evidence by the established deadlines.

The Tribunal proceeded in their absence under section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the appellants did not meet their evidentiary burden, the appeal was dismissed and Tarion's denial of the claim was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their second-year warranty claim for an incomplete boundary fence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the fence was not covered under the second-year warranty provisions of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, and the claim was filed past the deadline for a one-year warranty claim.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the fence was part of the agreement of purchase and sale.

The appeal was dismissed, costs were denied, and the Tribunal declined to order Tarion to report the matter to the Home Construction Regulatory Authority due to a lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario denying his claim for compensation from the Travel Compensation Fund for a religious pilgrimage trip that was never provided.

The appellant claimed his brother-in-law paid a travel agent $23,000 in cash on his behalf, but the receipts provided were found to be inconsistent with legitimate invoices from the agency.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove on a balance of probabilities that a payment was made to a registered travel agent.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a pre-existing back condition, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition precluding recovery within the MIG, largely due to non-compliance with production orders.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's in-person medical assessments over the applicant's virtual assessments, concluding the applicant did not suffer from chronic pain or a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for three chiropractic treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the treatments were not reasonable and necessary and pointing to the applicant's extensive pre-existing conditions, including fibromyalgia and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, noting that the proposed treatment plans overlapped and duplicated services, reducing their reliability.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 musculoskeletal assessment, which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement for soft-tissue injuries.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was awarded.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim for an unpaved driveway.

The appellants argued that a paved driveway was included in their Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) and that receiving a gravel driveway constituted a deficiency or unauthorized substitution.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the APS as a whole and found that the mention of driveway paving in the completion clause did not create an obligation to provide a paved driveway.

The Tribunal concluded there was no deficiency under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and confirmed Tarion's denial of the claim.