Jennifer Friedland

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

His Ontario driver's licence had been suspended in 2008 for one year following a criminal conviction, after which he moved to New Brunswick and obtained a valid licence there.

Unbeknownst to him, his Ontario licence was further suspended for failing to complete a remedial program.

The Tribunal found that the appellant exercised due diligence, as he reasonably relied on the one-year suspension period communicated in court and the Registrar failed to provide evidence that notice of the further suspension was sent to him.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle ordered released.

The Registrar brought a motion to lift a stay of the Tribunal's order revoking the appellants' registrations as motor vehicle dealers and salespersons, alleging non-compliance with disclosure conditions.

Prior to the resumption of the motion, the parties agreed to terms to continue the stay.

The Tribunal issued a consent order continuing the stay subject to modified, detailed conditions regarding the disclosure of transaction documents to the Registrar.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

After three days of hearing, the parties reached an agreement to grant the registration subject to conditions, including a five-year prohibition on being a partner or director of a dealer, and a requirement to repay $37,000 to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order reflecting the agreement and disposing of the appeal without further hearing.

The appellant childcare centre brought a costs application following a successful appeal against the Director's proposal to refuse to renew its licence.

The appellant argued the Director acted unreasonably and in bad faith, citing late disclosure, destruction of notes, and reliance on unproven grounds.

The Tribunal found no bad faith but concluded the Director's conduct was unreasonable, specifically regarding the late disclosure of relevant information and the destruction of inspection notes by Program Advisors.

The Tribunal awarded the appellant $2,750 in costs.

The appellants appealed inspection orders issued by Thunder Bay Fire Rescue requiring their student rental properties to comply with the Ontario Fire Code provisions for rooming houses.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the properties were occupied as single housekeeping dwelling units, not rooming houses, based on evidence of collective decision-making among the student tenants.

The Commission rescinded the inspection orders but, on consent, ordered additional fire safety measures under section 26(6) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, given the unique risks of student housing.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her ex-boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen because her ex-boyfriend took it from her workplace without permission.

The Tribunal found that because the ex-boyfriend was a joint owner of the vehicle and there was no agreement depriving him of possession, the vehicle was not stolen within the meaning of the Act.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The Registrar alleged the appellant submitted false documents to OMVIC, the MTO, and an auto auction, and engaged in unregistered trading ('curbsiding') of salvage vehicles without disclosing their history to buyers.

The Tribunal found the Registrar proved the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant's conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal declined to impose conditions and directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to refuse registration.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Board of Trustees of the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Compensation Fund denying their claims for compensation.

The claims arose from undocumented transactions with a registered motor vehicle dealer whose registration was subsequently revoked.

The Board denied the claims due to a lack of evidence and argued the appellants' version of events was improbable.

The Tribunal found the appellants' testimony credible and consistent, despite the unusual circumstances and lack of documentation.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, ordering the Fund to pay $2,000 to the first appellant and $45,000 to the second appellant.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of Platinum Cars Inc. as a motor vehicle dealer and Shaun Jalili as a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The appellants appealed the proposal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

During the hearing, the parties reached an agreement to resolve all issues.

The Tribunal issued a consent order directing that the Registrar will not carry out the revocation, and the registrations will be subject to conditions agreed upon in the Minutes of Settlement.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act regarding their new home.

The appellants claimed damages for the builder's installation of poplar stairs instead of the oak stairs specified in the agreement, the omission of side parapet walls, and poor exterior brick workmanship.

The Tribunal found that the installation of poplar stairs was an unauthorized substitution under s. 19 of Regulation 892 and awarded the appellants the full replacement cost of $11,990 plus HST, rejecting Tarion's argument that damages should be limited to the difference in value.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims regarding the parapet walls and exterior bricks, finding no breach of warranty as the construction met acceptable standards of workmanship and the appellants had no contractual right to select the exterior elevation design.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence for Blaxx Caribbean Dive Bar.

The Registrar alleged that the past or present conduct of the appellant and a co-signer on the lease afforded reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity, citing a shooting incident near the premises and alleged non-cooperation with police and AGCO officials.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had been cooperative, that the shooting occurred in a shared parking lot rather than on the licensed premises, and that the co-signer had no financial or management involvement in the business.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the transfer of the licence, subject to a condition regarding exclusive possession.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed Tarion's decision refusing to extend the deadline to request conciliation for a first-year warranty claim regarding pipe insulation deficiencies.

The appellant argued that extraordinary circumstances existed because it was misled by Tarion and the builder, did not understand the claims process, and was unaware of the extent of the problem.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove extraordinary circumstances caused the missed deadline and that the two-year delay in requesting an extension was unreasonable.

The appellant retirement home appealed two administrative penalties issued by the Registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority.

The penalties related to the confinement of a resident during the start of the pandemic and the failure to protect residents from unwanted touching by another resident, as well as failing to report the incidents.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal issued a consent order requiring the appellant to comply with specific undertakings, pay $500 to the RHRA's Emergency Fund, and directing the Registrar to remove the administrative penalties from the public register.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his application for a cannabis retail manager licence.

The Registrar argued the appellant was ineligible due to past conduct, including involvement in an illegal dispensary, a prior conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking, and outstanding civil litigation involving allegations of bad faith.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant did not intentionally mislead the Registrar on his application, his concerning conduct regarding the illegal dispensary and the serious allegations in the ongoing civil litigation provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty, integrity, or in the public interest.

The proposal to refuse the licence was confirmed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant filed an appeal 20 days after the impoundment, missing the 15-day deadline.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was short, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal also converted the motion to a case conference to schedule an early hearing date and outlined the legal tests for due diligence and exceptional hardship to be addressed at the hearing.

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its principal, brought a motion to stay the Tribunal's order revoking their registrations pending an appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the appeal raised a serious issue, the appellants would suffer irreparable harm without a stay as the dealership was their sole source of income, and the balance of convenience favoured a stay provided conditions were imposed to protect the public.

The stay was granted subject to conditions including posting security and maintaining specific transaction records.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a 90-day vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by the appellant's ex-boyfriend, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued she initially believed the impoundment was for 45 days and only formed the intention to appeal upon learning it was for 90 days, after the appeal period had expired.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds for the delay, noting institutional delay in processing mail, and granted the extension of time.

A case conference was subsequently held to schedule the hearing on the merits.

The appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for a concession-style bistro in a park.

Following significant objections from neighbourhood residents, the Registrar issued a proposal to review the application.

During the hearing, two of the added parties reached a side agreement with the appellant and the property owner, withdrawing their objections.

The third added party also withdrew.

Consequently, the Registrar withdrew its proposal and agreed to issue the licence on consent with specific conditions regarding noise and a contact number for complaints.

The Kitchener Fire Department appealed a Review Decision of the Fire Marshal that rescinded an Inspection Order issued to the owner of a heritage building.

The original order required the owner to conduct a Life Safety Study under section 21(1)(f) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the Fire Marshal's decision, finding that a Life Safety Study is a compliance option specific to Part 9 of the Fire Code and cannot be ordered as a general remedy under section 21(1)(f).

While acknowledging potential fire safety issues regarding building exits, the Commission declined to make a new order due to insufficient evidence regarding Building Code requirements.

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

At the start of the hearing, the appellant requested an adjournment, citing insufficient time to review the respondent's materials and work commitments.

The respondent objected, arguing the appellant had received the materials electronically months prior and that an adjournment would prejudice its civilian witnesses.

The adjudicator granted the adjournment in part, ordering the hearing to commence so the respondent could call its case, but allowing flexibility for the appellant's work schedule and adjourning the hearing to new dates for the appellant to present his case.