Harriet Lewis

The appellant, a vehicle leasing company, appealed the impoundment of a truck leased to a driver whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by checking the driver's licence and insurance at the time the lease was signed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Highway Traffic Act requires due diligence to be exercised at or near the time the vehicle is impounded, which the appellant failed to demonstrate.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke his licence as an owner and trainer of Standardbred horses.

The Registrar proposed revocation based on the appellant's extensive criminal and driving record, including convictions for assault, forgery, and driving while suspended, as well as his failure to disclose these convictions on his licence applications.

The Tribunal found clear and compelling evidence that the appellant's past conduct demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the law, providing reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence was revoked.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of an Animal Care Review Board decision that upheld the removal of her 27 dogs.

The dogs were removed after being found in distress in the appellant's trailer while she was attending court on criminal cruelty charges.

The appellant argued for reconsideration based on her emotional bond with the dogs and recent trailer renovations.

The Board dismissed the request, finding the appellant failed to establish any of the required legal grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence (class ACZ to G) for medical reasons following an incident where he lost consciousness.

The appellant argued the incident was caused by an allergic reaction to an insect sting, while the Minister relied on medical reports indicating a seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffered a generalized tonic clonic seizure.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded that the condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and confirmed the requirement for a one-year seizure-free period before reinstatement.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence for medical reasons after he lost consciousness while working.

The appellant claimed the collapse was caused by an allergic reaction to an insect sting, but emergency medical records indicated he had suffered a seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found substantial evidence that a seizure occurred, including witness reports of convulsions and elevated blood lactate levels.

The Tribunal upheld the Minister's decision, finding it reasonable to require the appellant to remain seizure-free for one year before considering reinstatement of his commercial licence.

The appellant appealed the removal of 27 dogs from her trailer by an animal welfare inspector and the subsequent statement of account for their care.

The Board found that the dogs were in distress due to overcrowding, high temperatures, and unsanitary conditions in the trailer.

The Board declined to return the dogs, finding the appellant had no viable plan for their future care.

The statement of account was varied and reduced to $69,295.00 to reflect inconsistencies in the evidence regarding a pregnant dog and a litter.

The Kitchener Fire Department appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal that rescinded an Inspection Order issued to the owner of a heritage building.

The original order required the owner to conduct a Life Safety Study under section 21(1)(f) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the Fire Marshal's decision, finding that a Life Safety Study is a compliance option specific to Part 9 of the Fire Code and cannot be ordered as a general remedy under section 21(1)(f).

While acknowledging potential fire safety issues regarding building exits, the Commission declined to make a new order due to insufficient evidence regarding Building Code requirements.

The appellant appealed the downgrade of his class ACM driver's licence with a Z endorsement, which allowed him to drive heavy vehicles.

His licence was suspended for medical reasons following spinal surgery.

A functional driving assessment recommended a G licence due to ongoing mobility issues.

The Registrar required a three-part driver's examination, including a road test in an AC class vehicle, to maintain the commercial licence.

The appellant failed to complete the road test, resulting in the downgrade.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar had reasonable grounds to believe the appellant could not safely operate an AC class vehicle and that it was reasonable to require a satisfactory road test.

The appeal was denied.

The Kitchener Fire Department appealed a Fire Marshal Review Order that rescinded an Inspection Order against the respondent homeowners.

The homeowners rented out eight bedrooms in their single detached dwelling to students.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the property functioned as a boarding, lodging, and rooming house under section 9.3 of the Fire Code, rather than a single family dwelling, based on factors such as individual rent payments and locks on bedroom doors.

Because the basement had only a single means of egress, the Commission amended the Inspection Order to require the removal of the two basement bedrooms for fire safety reasons.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle had been stolen by an unauthorized driver.

The Registrar agreed that the vehicle was stolen and consented to its release without charge.

The matter having been resolved, the appeal was withdrawn.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke her registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar alleged she falsified customer information to obtain special discounts and failed to disclose criminal convictions for impaired and dangerous driving on her renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly made false statements on her applications and engaged in repeated incidents of creating forged documents.

The Tribunal concluded that her past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe she would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to revoke her registration.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke her registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant falsified customer information to obtain special discounts and failed to disclose criminal convictions for impaired and dangerous driving on her renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly made false statements on her applications and engaged in serious misconduct by forging documents.

The Tribunal concluded that her past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe she would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar alleged the appellant's past conduct, including attempting a sham transaction to refinance his aunt's vehicle and trading without registration, afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant breached the Act, he genuinely, if mistakenly, believed his actions were permissible.

Given his 22-year unblemished record and remorse, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar not to carry out the proposal and directed that the appellant be registered subject to conditions, including completing an OMVIC course and restrictions on signing sales contracts.

The appellant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his appeal of a 90-day driver's licence suspension.

The suspension was imposed after he refused to provide a driver's licence or breath sample to police.

At the original hearing, the appellant argued he was not the individual to whom the demands were made, claiming he was 'more than one person.' The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the appellant failed to provide any cogent evidence or argument establishing a jurisdictional error, procedural unfairness, error of law or fact, or new evidence under Rule 18 of the Tribunal's Rules.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to medical conditions.

The suspension was initiated after reports of erratic driving and uncontrolled diabetes, followed by a cerebellar stroke.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's multiple medical conditions, including diabetes, depression, obstructive sleep apnea, and previous stroke, had a cumulative effect on his functional ability to drive.

The Tribunal upheld the suspension, noting the appellant's failure to pass two functional driving assessments.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition report indicating alcoholism.

The appellant denied suffering from alcoholism and attributed his physical instability to a Charcot foot.

The Tribunal found strong medical evidence of alcohol dependence and mild alcohol-related dementia.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant suffers from a medical condition likely to significantly affect his ability to drive safely and affirmed the Registrar's decision.

The appellant appealed a proposal to refuse to issue him a licence as an owner and trainer of Standardbred horses.

The Registrar refused the licence based on the appellant's failure to disclose his extensive disciplinary history on his application and his participation in a hidden ownership scheme while unlicenced.

The appellant argued his past conduct was caused by cognitive impairments and schizophrenia, which were now being managed.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act with integrity or honesty, noting a lack of independent evidence showing sufficient improvement in his cognitive abilities to adhere to the strict regulations of the horse racing industry.

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

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a Notice of Proposal to deny a liquor licence transfer.

The Tribunal had previously determined that because the underlying licence was revoked and the proposal withdrawn, there was no proposal to appeal.

On reconsideration, the adjudicator found no violation of procedural fairness, no error of law, and no false evidence, concluding that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is strictly limited by statute.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The Registrar issued a Proposal to refuse the renewal of the appellant's registration as a real estate salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The refusal was based on the appellant's past criminal convictions, her failure to disclose a personal bankruptcy and a 2012 criminal conviction on her applications, and her breach of registration conditions by failing to have her new broker sign her conditions upon transferring brokerages.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that she would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposal to refuse the renewal of her registration.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Registrar alleged the appellants failed to cooperate with inspectors, breached conditions of registration, falsified documents, and engaged in non-compliant trades.

The Tribunal found that the salesperson's failure to disclose required information, improper use of bank accounts, disregard for inspection appointments, and admitted forgery of a customer's signature demonstrated ungovernability.

The appeal was denied and the Registrar was ordered to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.