Harinder S. Gahir

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a real estate salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's past misconduct as a registered motor vehicle dealer, his failure to pay a liability to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund, and false statements made in his application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible, had knowingly provided false statements, and had a history of dishonest conduct that afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $2,500 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing for permitting drunkenness and failing to clear signs of service and consumption within 45 minutes after the end of the service period.

At the hearing, the appellant admitted the allegations and requested additional time to pay the fine.

The Tribunal noted it only has jurisdiction to confirm or set aside the penalty under s. 14.1(7) of the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996, and cannot defer payment.

The Tribunal confirmed the monetary penalty.

The Registrar brought a motion to quash the Appellant's appeal of a proposal to refuse his registration under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Registrar argued that the appeal was an abuse of process because a different panel of the Tribunal had recently refused the Appellant's registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, based on similar statutory grounds regarding past conduct and integrity.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the ultimate issues under the two legislative schemes are distinct.

The Tribunal held that the Appellant was entitled to a hearing to present new evidence and propose conditions specific to the real estate industry.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized while being driven by her son whose licence was suspended due to a dangerous driving conviction.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence because she was present when her son was sentenced and reasonably believed his probation order permitted him to drive for work-related purposes.

The Tribunal found the appellant's belief was reasonable and that she met her obligation to act prudently.

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

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship and that the vehicle was stolen.

The appellant's son, whose licence was suspended, took the vehicle without the appellant's knowledge or consent.

The Tribunal dismissed the exceptional hardship ground, finding that alternatives to the vehicle were available.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the vehicle was stolen, as it was taken without consent and the owner was unaware of the son's licence suspension.

The Registrar was ordered to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to his construction business.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives available, such as his wife's vehicle, his own BMW, and help from friends.

Because alternatives existed, the Tribunal was precluded by regulation from considering economic loss as a basis for exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the grounds of exceptional hardship and that the vehicle was stolen.

The vehicle was driven by her daughter's common-law partner, a suspended driver, who took it without permission to buy groceries.

The Tribunal found that the inconvenience caused to the daughter did not meet the regulatory criteria for exceptional hardship.

However, the Tribunal found that the vehicle was taken without consent and with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner of it, meeting the definition of 'stolen' under the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of Global Auto Care Inc. as a motor vehicle dealer and Michael Wayne Doherty as a salesperson.

The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve the matter without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal approved the Settlement Agreement and ordered the proceedings concluded on the basis of the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, which included repayment to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund and strict compliance conditions.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims regarding a new home purchased from the builder.

The applicant alleged unauthorized substitutions and workmanship defects, including smaller windows, an improperly placed kitchen window, unsealed granite tiles, a glued subfloor, and a non-functional closet.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed most of the claims for lack of evidence that the builder breached the agreement or provided inferior substitutions.

However, the Tribunal allowed the claim regarding the bedroom closet, finding that the inward-swinging door rendered it non-functional and constituted a defect in workmanship.

Tarion was ordered to pay $1,700 plus HST to rectify the closet.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to review its application for a liquor licence for a small bake shop.

An added party, a local resident, objected to the application primarily due to concerns about future transfers, late-night noise, and requested restricted hours.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the licence was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application subject to conditions requiring food service and litter control.

The Applicant, a registered real estate salesperson, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration.

The Registrar alleged the Applicant engaged in three fraudulent property transactions in 2008, involving double-dealing, inflating property prices to assist purchasers in obtaining higher mortgage financing, and breaching his fiduciary duties to his clients for personal gain.

The Applicant admitted the misconduct but sought a suspension with conditions, including a non-binding condition to pay restitution, rather than revocation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to order restitution and concluded that the serious nature of the Applicant's misconduct, which included orchestrating sophisticated schemes to defraud clients and lenders, overshadowed mitigating factors such as his remorse, psychological counseling, and support from his broker.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the Applicant's registration.

The applicant appealed the Registrar's refusal to issue a Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR).

The Registrar refused the application on the basis that one of the applicant's directors was allegedly related to another company with a suspended CVOR due to unpaid fines.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that the director was actually related to the suspended company, accepting testimony that his name was added to corporate records in error.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the refusal.

The applicant sought to relocate its campus bar, the Phoenix Bar & Grill, to a new central location at McMaster University.

Neighborhood residents objected to the liquor licence application, citing ongoing issues with intoxicated students, noise, and vandalism in the area.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the residents' concerns about general student drunkenness were valid, there was no evidence linking these issues specifically to the applicant's operations, which had a 43-year history without infractions.

The Tribunal approved the licence application but attached conditions regarding patio music, surveillance, and community contact to address the residents' concerns.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the registration of a motor vehicle dealer and its salesperson following the dealer's guilty pleas to two counts of fraud over $5,000 related to improperly changing Vehicle Identification Numbers (VINs) on rebuilt vehicles.

The Tribunal found that while the convictions were serious and industry-related, significant mitigating factors existed.

The dealer cooperated with police, took educational courses, retained an expert to ensure future compliance, and spent $66,000 to repurchase the affected vehicles, ensuring no consumer suffered financial loss.

The Tribunal concluded the past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds to believe the dealer would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal.