Jacqueline Castel

The applicant applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence requiring the sale and service of alcohol to cease at 10 p.m.

The condition was imposed 15 years prior based on an agreement with a resident objector.

The parties agreed that the neighbourhood and the applicant's business model had changed, and the applicant had a clean regulatory record.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act and ordered the condition removed on consent.

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

The appellant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence and found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order was confirmed.

The applicant, a new owner of a licensed establishment, applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited minors after 9:30 p.m.

The condition had been imposed on the previous owner due to a disciplinary matter.

The Tribunal found that a change in circumstances had occurred, as the applicant was not connected to the previous owner and operated a family dining establishment rather than a nightclub.

With the consent of the Registrar, the Tribunal ordered the condition removed.

The applicant, a new owner of a licensed establishment, applied under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited minors after 9:30 p.m.

The condition had been imposed on the previous owner as part of a disciplinary matter.

The applicant argued that there was a change in circumstances because it was not connected to the previous owner and operated a family dining establishment rather than a nightclub.

The respondent consented to the removal of the condition.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the condition removed.

The applicant, a licensee on Wolfe Island, applied under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act to remove four conditions from its liquor licence regarding patio hours and live music.

The applicant provided evidence of a change in circumstances, including support from the original objectors, a petition from neighbours, and a letter of no objection from the municipality.

The respondent agreed that circumstances had changed and proposed replacing the four conditions with two new conditions extending the patio hours and season.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of the old conditions and the addition of the new agreed conditions.

The applicant sought to remove four conditions from its liquor licence regarding noise and entertainment, citing a change in circumstances since the conditions were imposed in 2000.

The respondent consented to the removal of the conditions, noting the absence of noise complaints and the applicant's evidence of community support for live music on statutory holiday weekends.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of the existing conditions, replacing them with new conditions permitting live entertainment on Sundays and statutory holiday weekends.

The applicant, a new operator of a licensed establishment, applied to remove four conditions from its liquor licence that were imposed on a previous, unrelated operator in 2010.

The respondent agreed that there had been a change in circumstances and consented to the removal of the conditions, subject to the addition of a new condition requiring the applicant to maintain a telephone line with a message service for resident complaints.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the conditions removed and the new condition added on consent.

The applicant applied to remove two conditions from its liquor licence relating to an outdoor patio.

The parties agreed that there had been a change in circumstances because the patio no longer existed and the area was now used as a parking lot.

The Tribunal found that the conditions were no longer applicable and ordered them removed on consent.

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its vehicle after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by asking the employee if he had a valid licence during his job interview.

The Tribunal found this insufficient, holding that due diligence requires an employer to inspect the driver's licence and confirm its status with the Ministry of Transportation or through a driver record search before allowing an employee to drive company vehicles.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which was driven by his son whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant did not exercise due diligence as he failed to verify his son's licence status.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the appellant had alternative transportation options and the vehicle was classified as unfit to drive.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment order confirmed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after being operated by a driver with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 11 days late and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Tribunal applied the factors for extending time and found that while the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was short, and there was no prejudice to the respondent, the appeal lacked merit.

The appellant could not establish exceptional hardship because he owned a second vehicle and had access to a rental car, meaning there was an alternative to the impounded vehicle.

The motion to extend time was denied.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's daughter permitted her boyfriend, who was restricted to driving vehicles with an ignition interlock device, to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not meet the requirement of showing there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she owned another vehicle and her daughter also had access to an alternative vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to verify the driver's licence status and did not establish exceptional hardship because she found alternative transportation.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a 45-day motor vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded because it was operated by a driver with a suspended licence.

Although the appellant demonstrated a bona fide intention to appeal and the delay was minimal without prejudice to the respondent, the Tribunal found the appeal lacked merit.

The appellant could not establish exceptional hardship because she had access to an alternative vehicle and the impounded vehicle was damaged beyond repair.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering her to resign or face termination after she pleaded guilty to four counts of misconduct, including deceit and neglect of duty.

The misconduct involved forging supervisors' signatures on reports, lying about working penalty hours, and failing to attend court.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred in failing to find a nexus between her misconduct and her psychological disabilities, which included the impact of a miscarriage and the deaths of loved ones.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer reasonably concluded there was no connection between the disabilities and the deceitful conduct, and properly applied the dispositional factors in determining that the appellant's usefulness as a police officer had been annulled.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The evidence showed she was able to rely on friends, taxis, and hitchhiking to get to work, medical appointments, and grocery shopping.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order confirmed.

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

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the keys were left accessible and the appellant did not believe her husband was stealing it.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including assistance from family and public transportation.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order confirmed.

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

The appellant's daughter, who was the suspended driver at the time of impoundment, and a friend assisted the appellant with errands during the impoundment period.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment order was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's daughter allowed her boyfriend, a suspended driver, to drive it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because he had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as relying on neighbours for transportation to town and medical appointments.

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

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the appellant's mother had left the keys accessible to the father.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant failed to prove there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, having managed with public transportation and assistance from her aunt.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order confirmed.