Jane Weary

The applicants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to refuse to issue a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station licence and to refuse to register the individual applicant as a mechanic.

The refusal was based on numerous convictions for violations of the Highway Traffic Act, specifically failing to affix inspection stickers, and providing false information on a registration application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the Proposal, finding that the applicants' repeated breaches of the law and lack of diligence provided reasonable grounds to conclude they would not operate their licensed activities in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Applicant appealed an order by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming immediately suspending her registration as a gaming assistant.

The suspension followed the Applicant's arrest on criminal charges related to a marijuana grow operation discovered at a property she owned.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was aware of the illegal use of her property and had provided misleading information to investigators.

Concluding that the Applicant had not conducted herself within the law or with honesty and integrity, the Tribunal held that the immediate suspension of her registration was necessary in the public interest and confirmed the Registrar's order.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their new home warranty claims regarding the placement of a fireplace, the removal of an upstairs foyer, and markings on hardwood flooring.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a verbal agreement to center the fireplace to the kitchen, and no evidence that the removal of the fireplace bump-out constituted an inferior substitution.

The Tribunal also found the applicants had requested the changes that eliminated the upstairs hallway, and that the hardwood floor markings were likely due to normal wear and tear.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claim in full.

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

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, imposing conditions on the applicant's registration, including obligations regarding disclosure of vehicle history, odometer readings, and restrictions on his role within a dealership for five years.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the applicant's liquor licence.

At the commencement of the hearing, the parties advised they had reached a resolution of all matters in contention.

The applicant withdrew its appeal and the Registrar withdrew its Notice of Proposal.

The Tribunal ordered the matter concluded and the file closed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a former employee whose licence was suspended.

The applicant argued it exercised due diligence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant failed to exercise due diligence by leaving keys in vehicles in an unsecured lot, and failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship as there was no evidence of lost business or health and safety concerns.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The applicant had allowed her ex-husband, whom she knew to be a suspended driver, to use her vehicle, which was subsequently impounded.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant faced significant financial loss due to alternative transportation costs, she did have alternative transportation available (taxis, buses, friends).

Under O. Reg. 631/98, financial loss cannot be considered exceptional hardship if alternative transportation exists.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for breach of warranty against the builder of their new home.

The applicants alleged that the builder breached the warranty by installing vinyl windows instead of the wood windows specified in the purchase agreement, claiming the vinyl windows were inferior and caused health issues for the wife.

The builder argued it was entitled to substitute materials of equal or better quality.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the home was unfit for habitation due to the vinyl windows.

Relying on expert evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the vinyl windows were of equal or better quality than the wood windows, noting their similar performance, better water penetration resistance, and significantly lower maintenance requirements.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying eight first-year warranty claims regarding their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed claims including cracked door frames, staircase veneer, basement landing nosing, a ceiling leak, misaligned tiles, and missing windows.

The Tribunal found that the basement landing nosing was poorly installed and the basement window was improperly omitted contrary to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, awarding $1,213.25 for these two items.

The remaining claims were dismissed due to expired warranty periods, lack of evidence, or being covered by prior settlement agreements and waivers.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims against the builder of their new home.

The claims alleged defects in outside trim, window sill slopes, window seals causing condensation and air infiltration, and floor joist inadequacies.

The Tribunal found that the builder complied with the Ontario Building Code and industry standards, and that the alleged defects were either design choices, normal occurrences like condensation due to high indoor humidity, or acceptable variations in construction.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed Tarion's decision.

The builder and Tarion's requests for costs against the applicants were also dismissed, as the Tribunal found the applicants' conduct was not frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.