Harriet Lewis

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse her registration as a real estate salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Registrar argued the appellant was disentitled to registration due to financial irresponsibility, past conduct lacking integrity and honesty, and false statements on her application.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's history of unpaid rent, reliance on others for living expenses, past provincial offences convictions related to her real estate practice, and failure to disclose a consumer proposal and full conviction details on her application justified the refusal.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar's proposal to refuse registration was carried out.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision upholding an Inspection Order that required a second and separate exit for five bachelor apartments in its building.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the open hall and stairway area constituted a single exit, and residents of the bachelor units had to enter this space to access the fire escape.

As there was no direct access to a second exit, the Commission confirmed the order, finding a clear fire safety issue, and extended the compliance date.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration as a Gaming Supplier (Seller) under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The Registrar proposed refusal based on the applicant's 2011 conviction for fraud over $5,000 against her former employer, which involved a sophisticated scheme and breach of trust.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe she would not act with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest as a lottery ticket seller.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the application.

The appellant sought to appeal a Notice of Proposal to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence.

However, the licence in question had already been revoked because the original licence holder did not appeal a separate proposal to revoke it.

Following the revocation, the Registrar withdrew the proposal to refuse the transfer.

The Tribunal held that because there was no longer an existing licence to transfer and no outstanding proposal to refuse the transfer, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed under s. 48.3 of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to surrender his licence and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The sole ground of appeal was that he was not the same individual to whom the demands were made, claiming he was a separate person from the one apprehended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was positively identified by the arresting officer and admitted in cross-examination that one of his 'selves' was the driver.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the appellant made false statements on his application regarding the length of a driver's licence suspension and failed to disclose pending criminal charges.

Furthermore, the appellant's belligerent and inappropriate conduct toward OMVIC staff during the application process demonstrated ungovernability.

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

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant loaned it to a friend, who then had a co-worker drive it; the co-worker was stopped by police and found to be driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship as a single mother of three children.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had been able to make alternate transportation arrangements using public transit and assistance from family and friends.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke her registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant's past conduct, including criminal convictions for fraud related to a government grant and failures to disclose secondary employment as a paralegal and mortgage broker, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that she would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's repeated instances of fraud, misrepresentation, and non-disclosure over several years justified revocation.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration, finding that the imposition of conditions was not appropriate.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her son drove it while his license was suspended.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the vehicle was not stolen as the appellant left the keys accessible despite knowing her son's history of taking her vehicles.

The Tribunal also found that the exceptional hardship ground was unavailable due to previous impoundments of the appellant's vehicles for the same reason, and regardless, she had access to another vehicle.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder.

The Registrar required a six-month period of confirmed abstinence before reinstatement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had successfully completed a rehabilitation program, maintained abstinence for four and a half months, and provided favourable recommendations from medical professionals.

The Tribunal concluded there were no objective medical grounds to delay reinstatement and ordered the appellant's driver's licence to be reinstated.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen by her partner and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the partner took the keys from her purse without permission but was considered a co-owner by the appellant.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant failed to demonstrate she had explored all reasonable transportation alternatives as required by the strict test in the regulation.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant lent it to a friend who was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the impoundment caused financial and emotional stress, the appellant and his family managed to fulfill their obligations using alternative transportation.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed four Review Orders confirming Inspection Orders that required the appellant to apply thermal protection to spray-foam insulation and to repair or decommission an inoperable sprinkler system.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the spray-foam insulation required thermal protection under the Building Code to ensure fire safety.

The Commission also held that the Fire Code requires the sprinkler system to be maintained in operating condition unless decommissioned through an approved process, regardless of how long it had been inoperable.

The Review Orders were confirmed with amended compliance dates.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an unlicensed driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had not established exceptional hardship, as she was able to make alternate transportation arrangements for work and family needs, and other vehicles were available.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the appellant be registered as a motor vehicle dealer in the wholesaler class, subject to strict conditions prohibiting a specific individual from having any beneficial interest, control, or involvement in the business.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a Class G licence due to a heart condition.

The Registrar relied on medical guidelines suggesting the appellant was ineligible because of intermittent inotropic support.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was not receiving intermittent inotropes and that his coronary artery disease was stable and well-managed.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision, finding no evidence that the appellant's condition significantly interfered with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his commercial truck under the Highway Traffic Act on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an employee whose licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative vehicle was available or that the impoundment caused an immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss, as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded while being driven by her spouse, whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and her family were able to make alternate transportation arrangements during the impoundment period.

As such, the appellant failed to demonstrate that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence indefinitely due to alcohol dependence.

The suspension followed a Medical Condition Report submitted by an emergency room physician after the appellant sought treatment for extreme anxiety brought on by alcohol consumption.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant has an alcohol dependence, evidenced by a diagnosis of cirrhosis and recent relapses.

The Tribunal concluded that her dependence is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, as she had not enrolled in an addiction counselling program and relied solely on recent A.A. attendance.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was upheld.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a diagnosis of narcolepsy with cataplexy.

The Registrar required a 12-month symptom-free period prior to reinstatement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was successfully treated with medication and had been symptom-free for four months.

The Tribunal modified the Registrar's decision, reducing the required symptom-free period from 12 months to 6 months.