Jennifer Friedland

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) following the removal of 14 cats from her home.

AWS had entered the home without a warrant, citing critical distress, and subsequently kept the cats in boarding for months without making a formal decision to keep them in care under s. 31(6) of the PAWS Act.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the removal was authorized, the warrantless entry was not, as inspectors failed to consider obtaining a telewarrant.

The Board also ruled that AWS cannot keep animals in care without a formal decision, as this deprives owners of their appeal rights.

Consequently, the Board varied the Statement of Account to $2,814.88, striking all boarding costs, and ordered the return of the cats subject to strict conditions.

The appellants, a former Financial Services Manager and a former acting General Manager at a motor vehicle dealership, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse their registrations as salespeople.

The Registrar alleged that their past conduct, including participation in an early loan termination scheme and involvement in consumer trade issues such as overcharging, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the evidence did not support the Registrar's allegations to the required standard.

The Tribunal substituted its opinion for that of the Registrar and ordered that both appellants be registered forthwith without conditions.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to continue the downgrade of his commercial ADZ licence to a class G licence following a second seizure.

The seizure occurred after the appellant stopped taking his medication while on vacation because he had difficulty swallowing the pills.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's seizures were well-controlled by a newly prescribed, smaller-dose medication and that he was unlikely to stop taking it again.

Departing from the standard 5-year seizure-free requirement, the Tribunal modified the Registrar's decision, ordering the reinstatement of the commercial licence upon confirmation that the appellant has been seizure-free for 3 years.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence following a medical report indicating she likely suffered a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

The Registrar required one year of abstinence, reducible to six months with a structured treatment program.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the appellant had a medical condition or alcohol addiction likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, noting her voluntary sobriety, attendance at AA, and supportive medical team.

The Tribunal set aside the suspension and directed the reinstatement of her licence.

The appellant and respondent both requested a reconsideration of a previous Board decision that upheld the removal of the appellant's dogs due to hoarding conditions but varied the Statement of Account (SOA) to 25% of boarding costs based on the appellant's ability to pay.

The appellant sought the return of her dogs, while the respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider ability to pay and erred in finding veterinary costs unnecessary.

The Board dismissed both requests, finding no new evidence that would change the outcome for the appellant, and affirming its jurisdiction to vary an SOA based on ability to pay under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that varied a statement of account for animal care costs based on the owner's ability to pay and ordered a payment schedule.

The Board confirmed that it has the statutory jurisdiction to consider an owner's ability to pay when deciding whether to confirm, vary, or revoke a statement of account.

However, the Board found that it lacks jurisdiction to order a payment schedule, as the timeline for payment is prescribed by regulation.

The reconsideration was allowed in part, setting aside the payment schedule but confirming the varied amount.

The appellant appealed several compliance orders, the removal of over 70 cats from her home, and multiple Statements of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the first removal of 38 cats was justified due to severe distress caused by unsanitary conditions and high ammonia levels.

However, the Board found insufficient evidence to justify the second removal of 32 cats.

The Board varied the Statements of Account, striking out boarding costs due to lack of evidentiary support, reducing the total to $20,768.48.

The Board ordered the return of four older cats, subject to the appellant paying their proportionate share of the costs, with the remaining cats to be forfeited if the balance is not paid.

The appellant, a tow truck company, appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

The Registrar cancelled the appellant's Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate based on the poor safety record of an affiliated company and the driving record of the sole owner, which included multiple stunt driving charges.

The Tribunal found that the safety record provided reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to cancel the CVOR certificate and seize the plates.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to keep his dog in care under s. 44(8) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The respondent relied on four short video clips purportedly showing the appellant abusing the dog, but failed to call the author of the videos or any witnesses with first-hand knowledge.

The Board found the video evidence unreliable and concluded the respondent failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the dog would be placed in distress if returned.

The appeal was allowed and the dog was ordered returned to the appellant.

The appellant, a registered real estate salesperson, appealed a Notice of Proposal to suspend his registration for failing to comply with a prior discipline order requiring payment of a fine and completion of an educational course.

The parties reached an agreement after the appellant demonstrated progress in paying the fine and completing the course.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the appellant to continue paying the fine in installments and provide proof of course completion, resulting in the withdrawal of the Notice of Proposal and the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on medical reports indicating the appellant suffers from schizophrenia and moderate cognitive impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's medical condition, combined with his own admission of having a poor driving record, was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence, noting the appellant must complete a functional driving assessment and provide further psychiatric evaluation before reinstatement can be considered.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that rescinded inspection orders but imposed additional fire safety measures on their student-occupied residential properties.

The appellants argued the Commission erred in fact and law, and breached procedural fairness, particularly regarding the requirement to install fire-rated bedroom doors without their consent.

The Commission dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that its authority to impose additional safety measures under section 26(6) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act does not require the appellants' consent nor depend on the properties' Fire Code classification.

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

The parties reached a settlement agreement and applied for a Consent Order without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the request and ordered that the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement be incorporated into the Order, concluding the matter.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, had over 200 dogs removed by the respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector due to alleged non-compliance with previous orders.

The appellants brought a motion seeking to inspect the dogs, arguing they needed to take their own measurements and expressing concern over the dogs' welfare after three dogs died in the respondent's care.

The Animal Care Review Board found it had jurisdiction to order an inspection under Rule 9.3(d) because the respondent intended to rely on measurements taken during the removal.

However, the Board declined to order the inspection, finding it would not be proportionate or efficient to inspect over 200 dogs for measurements, and noting that the appellants' welfare concerns would be addressed by a separate disclosure order.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after he was caught driving with a suspended licence.

He filed an appeal of the impoundment over three weeks after the 15-day statutory deadline had passed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the four-factor test for an extension of time and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant, the Registrar would suffer prejudice, and the appeal lacked merit.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's decision to remove over 200 dogs from their properties.

The appellants brought a motion for further disclosure, including documentation of the removal, the subsequent care of the dogs, and the Informations to Obtain (ITOs) used for the search warrants.

The respondent refused, arguing the information was irrelevant.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the motion, finding the requested disclosure was relevant to whether the removal was lawful and necessary for a full understanding of the issues.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension followed medical reports indicating the appellant suffered a traumatic brain injury and mild cognitive impairment, with recommendations for a functional driving assessment.

The appellant argued he was a safe driver and could not afford the assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the medical conditions were likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and that a functional assessment was necessary to demonstrate otherwise.

The appellants, having successfully appealed the denial of their claims for compensation from the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Compensation Fund, sought costs against the respondent Board.

They argued the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith by alleging at the hearing that their claims were false.

The Tribunal dismissed the costs application, finding that the respondent's challenge to the appellants' credibility was not unreasonable given the lack of documentary proof and other anomalies in their claims.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's conduct did not meet the threshold for a costs award under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal's Rules.

The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was driven by her son-in-law whose licence was suspended.

The appeal was filed two days late.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not receive adequate notice of her right to appeal or the process for doing so, despite making ongoing efforts to retrieve her vehicle.

Applying the factors from Manuel, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was minimal, and there was no prejudice to the Registrar.

The extension of time was granted.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found they failed to prove the parapet walls on their new home were not constructed in a workmanlike manner or constituted an unauthorized substitution under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of fact or law, no evidence that false testimony affected the result, and that the proposed new evidence could have been obtained earlier and was irrelevant to the outcome.