Jeanie Theoharis

The appellant's motion for an extension of time to appeal a vehicle impoundment was dismissed after he failed to attend a case conference.

The Tribunal initiated a reconsideration on its own motion upon discovering that the Notice of Case Conference contained an incorrect date.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was denied an opportunity to be heard, violating the rules of procedural fairness, and ordered a rehearing of the motion.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle dealer under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached an agreement and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal waived the hearing requirement and ordered that the appellant's registration be issued subject to extensive conditions regarding compliance, business location, books and records, disclosure, financial responsibility, and maintaining a letter of credit.

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

The parties reached an agreement and consented to waive the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the appellant's registration be issued subject to several conditions, including restrictions on trading without registration, transferring registration, and acting as a controlling mind of a dealer.

The appellant appealed a vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing and did not respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appeal to be abandoned and dismissed it.

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

He requested an adjournment of the hearing pending the resolution of related criminal charges at the Superior Court of Justice.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted a short adjournment on consent to allow for settlement discussions, but declined to defer the hearing until after the criminal trial, noting the issues before the Tribunal were distinct from the criminal proceedings.

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 appellants requested an adjournment of their hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal after their counsel withdrew approximately 48 hours before the scheduled start date.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, citing the time already invested in preparation and the potential frustration of witnesses.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to the appellants of proceeding unrepresented in a complex matter outweighed the prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal noted the appellants' mental health issues and the minimal risk to the public given an existing immediate suspension order.

The adjournment was marked peremptory.

The appellant requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for January 2019, citing a recent change in legal representation.

The hearing dates had previously been marked peremptory after three prior adjournments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the request, noting that the appellant had an obligation to retain counsel available for the peremptory dates and that further delay was not in the public interest.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson, and requested a hearing regarding an immediate temporary suspension order.

The Tribunal considered whether to extend the immediate suspension order until the conclusion of the hearing.

Finding that the appellants had continued to engage in conduct that harmed consumers, including failing to pay warranty providers and not paying off trade-in vehicle liens, the Tribunal concluded that the risk to the public was great.

The immediate suspension order was extended until the hearing is concluded.

The respondent Registrar requested that the Licence Appeal Tribunal record the upcoming three-day in-person hearing pursuant to Rule 13.2 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering that it would arrange and pay for a court reporter to audio record the hearing, with parties responsible for the costs of obtaining any copies or transcripts.

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

The parties waived the requirement for a hearing and consented to an order based on agreed terms and conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing and ordered compliance with the agreed terms, which included record-keeping courses, a letter of credit, and financial disclosure requirements.

The appellants appealed the impoundment of their vehicle, claiming it was driven by a cousin and not by the suspended driver.

The respondent requested an adjournment and an in-person hearing because its key witness, the police officer who stopped the vehicle, was unavailable for the scheduled teleconference and visual identification of the driver was a central issue.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's requests, finding that an in-person hearing was necessary for procedural fairness and to allow the officer to present visual identification evidence.

The teleconference was vacated and an in-person hearing was scheduled.

The applicant applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that restricted the hours and days of alcohol service.

The condition had originally been imposed due to public objections.

The applicant posted a placard regarding the removal, and no public objections were received.

The Registrar took no position.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances, noting the lack of public objections and the applicant's business needs, and ordered the condition removed.

The appellant requested a hearing to address the Registrar's Notice of Proposal to revoke and an Order to immediately suspend its Crematorium Operator Licence.

At the initial teleconference hearing, the parties consented to extend the immediate suspension order until the conclusion of the hearing and discussed procedural matters.

The respondent argued that the Vice Chair who presided over the first day was seized of the matter and must continue as chair.

The Tribunal held that the Vice Chair was not seized of the appeal because no substantive evidence was presented and no substantive rulings were made that would impact the merits of the appeal.

The Tribunal issued a case management order setting dates for the continuation of the hearing and the exchange of documents.

The applicant applied to remove conditions from its liquor licence, which restricted live entertainment and patio operating hours.

The conditions were originally imposed due to noise concerns from nearby residential units.

The applicant argued that a change in ownership and business model, along with new sound equipment, constituted a change in circumstances.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish a change in circumstances, noting that the proximity to residential units remained unchanged and the applicant provided no supporting evidence of neighbour support or bylaw compliance.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Remove Conditions.

The applicant licensee applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited live entertainment or recorded music on the premises, arguing it was only meant to apply to the outdoor area.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a change in circumstances to warrant removing the condition without a full hearing.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Remove Conditions, triggering the applicant's right to a full hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles denying his eligibility for the Class G vision waiver program because his driver's licence was suspended for impaired driving within the preceding five years.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that under the Highway Traffic Act and O. Reg. 340/94, decisions made by the Minister under sub-clause 32(5)(b)(ii) regarding vision waiver eligibility are not appealable to the Tribunal.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant licensee applied to remove two conditions from its liquor licence, which required security guards at entrances and exits and signs advising patrons not to loiter.

The conditions were originally imposed to address a public objection when the establishment operated as a nightclub.

The applicant demonstrated a change in circumstances, noting it now operates as a full-service restaurant with food sales exceeding 70%.

The Registrar took no position and reported no objections or adverse disciplinary history.

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

Tarion Warranty Corporation requested an ex parte amendment to a case conference order regarding the recording of an upcoming hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the request, varying the order to reflect that the Tribunal, rather than Tarion, would arrange and pay for a court reporter to audio record the hearing.

The applicant, operating as The Music Hall, applied to remove two conditions from its liquor licence: one requiring security personnel outside during operating hours, and another prohibiting patrons under 19 during the serving of alcohol.

The applicant argued a change in circumstances, specifically a shift in business structure to host diverse events including all-ages functions.

The Registrar took no position and no public objections were received.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of the conditions.