Harriet Lewis

The appellant appealed a third statement of account totaling $34,687.56 for the boarding and veterinary care of animals removed from her property by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant argued the animals were forfeited when she did not appeal a keep-in-care decision and that she had no ability to pay.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the full amount of the account and that the appellant demonstrated a clear inability to pay.

The Board exercised its discretion to vary the account to $6,240, covering only the boarding charges up to the date the animals were deemed forfeited.

The appellant appealed the removal of 11 dogs, one kitten, and one rabbit from her premises by Animal Welfare Services, as well as the statements of account for their care.

The animals were removed under a warrant after a veterinarian assessed them as being in distress due to poor living conditions, malnutrition, and physical abuse.

The Animal Care Review Board found the testimony of the inspectors and veterinarians credible and concluded the animals were in distress at the time of removal.

The Board confirmed the removal, upheld the statements of account, and declined to order the return of the animals.

The appellant appealed a cancellation and seizure order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles regarding its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR).

The Registrar based the cancellation on the poor safety record of related persons and the appellant's own unacceptable safety record.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while there were connections between the appellant and the related persons, the appellant had made substantial improvements to its safety practices, including implementing a safety plan, terminating poor drivers, and improving its violation rate.

The Tribunal set aside the cancellation and seizure order, allowing the appellant to retain its CVOR subject to conditions, including a fleet limitation and a requirement for the owner to complete a CVOR test.

The appellant purchased a used vehicle 'as is' from a dealer.

After discovering an oil leak, the appellant sought compensation from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund.

The Board of Trustees denied the claim.

On appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet the strict criteria set out in s. 79(3) of Regulation 333/08, as there was no evidence the purchasers told the dealer it was material to the transaction that the vehicle had no conditions that might result in an oil leak.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought two motions to strike grounds of appeal, including Charter claims, related to the removal of over 200 dogs from the appellants' dog sledding business.

The appellants requested an adjournment of the motions because a recent disclosure order required the respondent to produce extensive materials regarding the removal and care of the animals.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the adjournment, finding that the pending disclosure would facilitate a more open process and informed participation by providing factual context relevant to the motions.

The appellants, owners of a dog sledding business, appealed the removal of over 200 dogs by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

They brought a preliminary motion seeking the interim return of the dogs pending the full hearing, arguing that a multiplicity of proceedings between the parties offended natural justice.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the other proceedings did not address the same issues and were mostly initiated by the appellants themselves.

Furthermore, under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, the Board only has the authority to order the return of animals after a full hearing on the merits, unless both parties consent, which did not occur here.

The appellants appealed the removal of 17 pigs from their property by Animal Welfare Services and the associated statements of account for boarding and care.

The animals were removed after inspectors found them to be in distress due to inadequate access to clean water, poor housing conditions, and untreated medical issues, and following the appellants' failure to comply with previous compliance orders.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the removal was warranted under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, as the animals were in distress and the appellants had not complied with outstanding orders.

The Board confirmed the statements of account, finding the costs reasonable, and dismissed the appeal.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of the appellants as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The parties reached a resolution and executed Minutes of Settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a Consent Order continuing the appellants' registrations subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Minutes of Settlement, and the appeal was withdrawn.

The appellant appealed a Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a real estate salesperson.

His previous application was refused due to past misconduct involving a motor vehicle dealership and unpaid retail sales taxes.

The Tribunal found that the appellant met the requirements to re-apply, having demonstrated a material change in circumstances through character evidence, further education, and stable employment in regulated industries.

The Tribunal concluded that his current financial status is stable, his past conduct no longer affords reasonable grounds to believe he will act without integrity, and his inaccurate application statements were not knowingly false.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to register the appellant subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his vehicle under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after he was caught driving with a suspended Ontario driver's licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because he needed the vehicle for his construction work to support his family in Newfoundland.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that he had considered every reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, such as public transportation or renting a vehicle.

Furthermore, the financial loss was not lasting, and the impact was not upon a person ordinarily transported by the vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed her brother, an unlicensed driver, to drive.

The appellant argued exceptional hardship, citing her need for the vehicle for work as a nurse and daily life.

The Tribunal found that because the appellant was able to rent a vehicle, she had an alternative available and therefore did not meet the onus to demonstrate exceptional hardship.

The order of impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a real estate salesperson.

This was his second application, his first having been refused due to past misconduct involving a motor vehicle dealership.

The Tribunal found that the appellant met the requirements to re-apply, having shown a material change in circumstances through character evidence, further education, and stable employment in regulated industries.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant's current financial circumstances were stable, his past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds to believe he would act dishonestly in the future, and he did not intentionally make false statements on his application.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to register the appellant subject to conditions.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a Fire Marshal Order requiring the installation of a sprinkler system at an adult care facility.

The order was served on December 22, 2020, but the notice of appeal and application for an extension were not filed until March 23, 2021.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding that under section 26(4) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, an application for an extension of time must be made within 30 days after the order is served.

Because the motion was filed two months after the statutory deadline, the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the extension request.

The applicant builder sought an extension of time to appeal a Notice of Proposal to refuse its registration.

The proposal was issued because the applicant failed to provide required financial security.

The applicant missed the 15-day appeal deadline by 36 days, attributing the delay to illness and a change of address.

The Tribunal found that the applicant maintained a firm intention to appeal, the delay was relatively brief, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The motion to extend the time to appeal was granted, but the applicant remains un-licensed pending the hearing on the merits.

The applicant builder brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Notice of Proposal to refuse to renew its registration.

The applicant missed the 15-day deadline and argued the delay was due to confusion, changing requirements, and the principal's memory loss from vehicular accidents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant made a conscious decision to wait until regulatory authority transferred from Tarion to the HCRA before appealing, demonstrating a lack of firm intention to appeal within the required timeframe.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a travel agency under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The parties reached a resolution and executed Minutes of Settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a Consent Order continuing the appellant's registration subject to the conditions set out in the Minutes of Settlement, and the appeal was withdrawn.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services after suffering a life-threatening stab wound and the owners failed to provide instructions for emergency veterinary care.

The appellant appealed the resulting Statement of Account for the veterinary services, seeking to pay the amount in instalments.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the account was for necessaries to relieve the animal's distress.

The Board held that while the Chief Inspector may agree to payment in instalments under section 35(5) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, the Board lacks statutory authority to alter the payment provisions.

The appeal was dismissed and the appellant was ordered to pay the account in full within 10 business days.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The parties reached a resolution and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered that the appellant be registered as a salesperson subject to a series of conditions for a two-year period, including compliance with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, employment only by an approved sponsoring dealer, and disclosure of material facts about motor vehicles.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal that modified an Inspection Order regarding a hoarding situation in his apartment.

The Order required the appellant to maintain a 1-metre clearance from ignition sources and ceilings, and to provide a 1-metre egress pathway.

The appellant argued the requirements were impractical for his small apartment and that he was unfairly targeted.

The Fire Safety Commission found the measures were necessary to ensure fire safety, reasonable, and clear.

The Commission confirmed the Review Decision and extended the compliance date as agreed by the parties.

The appellant property owner appealed an order issued by the fire chief requiring the installation of 30-minute fire separations between dwelling units in a 7-unit residential building.

The appellant argued the building was safe and compliance would be too costly.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the building lacked adequate fire separations and that the required upgrades were necessary to ensure the safety of the tenants and first responders.

The appeal was dismissed, but the compliance date was extended to accommodate pandemic-related delays.