Jeanie Theoharis

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of deceit and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The misconduct involved the appellant interfering in an impaired driving investigation of a wedding guest and subsequently lying about his involvement.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by not recusing himself for bias, refusing to order disclosure of prosecution witness notes, and misapprehending voice identification evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, upholding the claim of litigation privilege over the witness notes, and concluding the Hearing Officer's findings of guilt were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of Discreditable Conduct and Deceit, and the subsequent penalty of termination.

The misconduct involved submitting numerous false health benefit claims for services allegedly provided by a non-existent massage therapist.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments of the defence witnesses were reasonable and that she did not improperly shift the burden of proof.

The Commission also upheld the penalty of termination, concluding that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the serious impact on the police service's reputation and the deliberate, repeated nature of the deceit.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that confirmed orders to seize his animals under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The appellant argued the Board violated procedural fairness due to late disclosure and made errors of fact regarding a lack of a warrant.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the original member reasonably addressed the late disclosure by granting an adjournment and that the appellant failed to establish any error of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

During a hearing appealing the revocation of his registration as a salesperson, the appellant introduced an email communication with his counsel into evidence but refused to disclose an attached draft notice of motion, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The respondent sought production of the attachment.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the draft motion, finding that even if the document was privileged, the appellant waived that privilege by voluntarily disclosing and relying on the email to support his case.

The appellant requested a hearing regarding the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties subsequently reached an agreement and submitted a consent order waiving the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal accepted the consent order, which imposed strict conditions on the appellant's registration, including supervision requirements, disclosure obligations, and a two-year prohibition on acting as a manager or final signatory for a dealer.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle dealer under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, based on past conduct and a false statement.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement and requested a consent order under s. 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal accepted the consent order, under which the appellant withdrew his application for dealer registration and the Registrar agreed to grant him registration as a motor vehicle salesperson subject to strict conditions.

The appeal was disposed of without a hearing.

The appellant appealed an order of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector resulting in the removal of three dogs and one cat from his residence.

After failing to attend a case conference and the peremptory hearing, and failing to contact the respondent for a reinspection, the Animal Care Review Board found the appellant had abandoned his appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer deemed the applicant's physical injuries to be predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he sustained psychological injuries that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-reporting of psychological distress to be unreliable and contradictory to his family doctor's records.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were minor, and because the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and assessment costs were not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award, interest, and costs were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his application for a cannabis retail operator licence.

The Registrar refused the application on the grounds that the appellant failed to disclose his full criminal history, including multiple impaired driving convictions, on his application and during subsequent interviews.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's proposal, finding that the appellant knowingly made false statements and that his conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law, honesty, or integrity.

The Tribunal also found that conditions were not appropriate to facilitate registration.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied their request to extend the time to file a major structural defect claim with Tarion Warranty Corporation.

The appellants sought to introduce new evidence, including City of Toronto service requests and correspondence.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the documents could have reasonably been obtained prior to the original hearing and would not likely have affected the result.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Minister of Transportation to downgrade his commercial driver's licence from Class DZ to Class GZ for failing to meet mandatory vision standards.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant argued that dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction would violate his equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter.

The Tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act, as no regulation prescribes a right of appeal for such decisions.

Consequently, the Tribunal also lacked jurisdiction to address the Charter challenge.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' cancellation of its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The appellant argued the Tribunal misapprehended evidence regarding a collision, failed to weigh recent safety improvements, and that the appellant was denied due process.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no significant error of law or fact in the original decision and noting that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to reweigh evidence.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision confirming the revocation of his registration as a class 2 gaming assistant.

The revocation followed an incident where the appellant found and took home approximately $2,000 from a casino floor.

The appellant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness and made an error of law by imposing a sanction disproportionate to his conduct, citing employment law principles.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that proportionality of sanction is not a procedural fairness issue and that employment law principles do not apply to regulatory proceedings focused on protecting the public interest.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for an outdoor area at its lodge.

Several residents objected, raising concerns about noise, traffic, and unruly behaviour, prompting the Registrar to issue a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

The added parties requested conditions limiting the hours of alcohol service and amplified music.

The Tribunal found that the issuance of the licence was in the public interest and that the objectors failed to establish that conditions were necessary, noting the appellant's positive track record, support from proximate residents, and existing regulatory obligations regarding noise.

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its salesperson, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The appellants failed to attend the hearing and their last-minute adjournment request was denied.

The Tribunal found that the appellants had repeatedly failed to comply with the terms of a prior consent order, including failing to pay out liens on trade-in vehicles within seven days and failing to remit extended warranty payments to providers.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not carry on business with financial responsibility, honesty, and integrity, and directed the Registrar to revoke their registrations.

The appellants appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse their registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties submitted a signed agreement waiving the hearing and consenting to an order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the registrations be issued subject to several conditions, including compliance with record-keeping requirements, restrictions on financing, and completion of an educational course.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the suspension of his driver's licence for medical reasons related to alcohol use disorder.

The Vice-Chair found that the original Tribunal made a significant error of law by reversing the burden of proof, incorrectly requiring the appellant to prove that his condition did not significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The reconsideration request was granted and a rehearing was ordered.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing its appeal as abandoned after failing to attend case conferences.

The appellant's counsel explained that the notice of the case conference was sent to an inactive email address not provided in the appeal materials.

The respondent consented to the reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that the rules of procedural fairness were violated because the appellant did not receive proper notice, cancelled the dismissal order, and directed the parties to attend a new case conference.

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

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties submitted a signed agreement waiving the hearing under s. 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and consenting to the revocation.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations on July 1, 2019, and vacated the hearing dates.

The appellant homeowner appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for defects in a new home.

The builder, Mattamy, brought a motion to be added as a party to the Licence Appeal Tribunal proceeding, arguing it could facilitate settlement and needed to protect its interests against potential indemnification claims by Tarion.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the builder did not have a significant interest in the proceeding.

The Tribunal noted that the statutory scheme is designed for consumer protection and that the builder's potential liability to Tarion in a separate indemnification claim does not warrant adding it as a party to the homeowner's appeal.