Jennifer Friedland

The applicant, a family-run restaurant, applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove a condition on its liquor licence that restricted the sale and service of alcohol past midnight.

The applicant argued that the restriction put it at a competitive disadvantage and that the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic constituted a change in circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the change in the competitive landscape and the pandemic's impact satisfied the requirement for a change in circumstances.

Relying on strong support from immediate neighbours, the Tribunal concluded that removing the condition was in the public interest and ordered its removal.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by her partner, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the exceptional hardship ground was unavailable because the appellant had previous vehicle impoundments.

The Tribunal also found the vehicle was not stolen, as the partner merely drove it without permission to launch a boat, with no intent to deprive the owner of it.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under s. 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's spouse drove it while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative transportation to her job in another city, and that relying on taxis caused immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship and ordered the release of the vehicle.

The appellant builder brought a motion to dismiss the Registrar's notice of proposal to refuse its registration renewal, arguing the proposal was ultra vires because the registration had already been renewed.

The appellant relied on a notification on Tarion's online builder portal indicating its registration was 'approved'.

The Tribunal found that the online notification was an administrative error and that the appellant's registration had never been renewed.

The motion was dismissed, allowing the appeal of the notice of proposal to proceed on its merits.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her roommate drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under s. 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no alternative transportation to get to her job and childcare provider, and that losing her job would have an immediate, significant, and lasting impact.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 90 days after her common-law spouse was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the exceptional hardship ground is not available under the Highway Traffic Act because the appellant had a previous vehicle impoundment within the prescribed two-year period.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to refuse to reinstate his Class 'A' commercial driver's licence following a medical suspension.

The appellant's licence was suspended after he experienced two seizures caused by a brain lesion, which was subsequently surgically removed.

The Registrar argued that the appellant must remain seizure-free for five years under the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had been seizure-free for over three years post-surgery and that his neurologist considered the risk of recurrence to be extremely low.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant no longer suffered from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and ordered the reinstatement of his licence.

The appellant's motor vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant appealed the impoundment to the Licence Appeal Tribunal on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet the first prong of the exceptional hardship test, as she had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as getting rides from a co-worker, borrowing her boyfriend's truck, or renting a car.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was driven by her on-again/off-again boyfriend, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence credible that the driver snuck into her house without her knowledge, took her keys, and drove off without consent.

Applying the legal definition of theft, the Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen and ordered its release.

The applicant fire department applied for an order under s. 33(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act to authorize it to carry out work required by an Inspection Order issued to the respondent, who had accumulated a large amount of combustible materials in her home.

The respondent's son indicated a plan to clear the materials, but progress was delayed by the COVID-19 Emergency Order.

The Fire Safety Commission found that there was a bona fide intention to comply and granted an extension of time, ordering that if the respondent failed to comply within 30 days of the lifting of emergency restrictions or by July 2, 2020, the applicant would be authorized to enter and complete the work at the respondent's expense.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant, an essential worker with an autistic child, had no reasonable alternative to her vehicle during the COVID-19 pandemic, as taking public transit posed a threat to their health and safety.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson after they sold two vehicles that were certified as safe but were subsequently deemed unfit for the road by an MTO inspector.

The dealer argued he relied on the Safety Standards Certificates issued by a third-party inspection station.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the dealer failed to meet his disclosure obligations and was wilfully blind to the vehicles' unsafe conditions, directing the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The appellants, a registered motor vehicle dealer and its sole director/salesperson, appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The proposal was based on the appellants' decade-long failure to accommodate inspections of their premises and records, and failure to timely notify OMVIC of a change of address.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not conduct business in accordance with the law and with integrity.

However, because the appellants were not warned of the consequences of missing inspections until the very end, the Tribunal substituted the revocation with an immediate, indefinite suspension until the appellants produce their records to the Registrar's satisfaction.

Toronto Fire Services appealed a decision of the Fire Marshal rescinding an inspection order issued to the respondent property owner.

The order required the owner to replace windows surrounding third-floor balconies to protect occupants using the balconies as areas of refuge during a fire.

The Fire Marshal had rescinded the order because the balconies were previously approved as a compliance alternative.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the previous approvals exempted the building from strict retrofit requirements, the inspector's broad powers to order fire safety measures justified requiring protection for the third-floor windows directly exposing the balconies.

However, the Commission found that windows on lower floors did not require protection given the building's fire alarm system and protected primary exits.

The Commission amended the Fire Marshal's decision to require protection only for the third-floor windows, while allowing the owner to submit alternative compliance options.

The Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards proposed to revoke the appellant's registration as a motor vehicle inspection mechanic after the appellant pleaded guilty to provincial offences for improperly issuing safety standards certificates and making a false statement.

The appellant appealed the proposal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while the facts underlying the proposal were proven, revocation was unnecessary to protect the public.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's continued employment without issue, the licensee's updated procedures, and the specific deterrence achieved by the significant fines already imposed.

The Tribunal ordered the Director to refrain from carrying out the proposal.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant was caught driving while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no alternative to the impounded vehicle and that the impoundment posed a threat to the health and safety of his wife, who suffered a miscarriage and required transportation for medical care and insulin.

The Tribunal concluded that the test for exceptional hardship was met and ordered the release of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the suspension of his driver's licence, which was suspended for medical reasons after he experienced a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the appellant currently suffers from seizures likely to interfere with his driving.

However, the Tribunal found that the appellant is addicted to alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, as he had not yet completed a structured treatment program and had a history of relapse.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle, which was detained after her grandson was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as her grandson took the keys from her purse while she was sleeping without her permission.

The Tribunal found that the grandson's actions amounted to theft, even though he was a family member and might have intended to return the vehicle.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles sought a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that ordered the release of an impounded vehicle on the basis that it was stolen.

The vehicle had been taken by an employee of the owner whose licence was suspended.

The Registrar argued that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of 'stolen' under section 50.2(3)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act, asserting that the employee had tacit consent or lacked the requisite intent to steal.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact in its original determination that the vehicle was taken without permission from the workplace with the intent to deprive the owner of it, thereby meeting the definition of a stolen vehicle.

The appellant travel agency appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The Registrar sought revocation based on the appellant's history of late filing of financial statements, occasional late filing of compensation fund forms, and failure to maintain required working capital.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant breached conditions of its registration, the principal's past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence of improved filing practices and a plan to correct the working capital shortfall by selling a matrimonial home.

The Tribunal substituted its opinion for the Registrar's, directing the Registrar to refrain from revoking the registration and instead imposing strict conditions on the appellant's continued registration.