Joanne E. Foot

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

The vehicle had already been released, so the appeal concerned reimbursement of impoundment fees.

The appellant, who did not hold an Ontario driver's licence and was required to use an ignition interlock device, argued financial hardship and stress.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle or that the impoundment resulted in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of his vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing exceptional hardship.

The Registrar argued the appellant could not rely on exceptional hardship because his vehicle had been impounded within the past two years.

The Tribunal found that a previous impoundment occurred in June 2019, which precluded the exceptional hardship ground under s. 50.2(4) of the Highway Traffic Act, even though the related charge of driving while suspended was subsequently withdrawn.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her all-terrain vehicle (ATV) under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The ATV was impounded after the appellant's son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she relied on the ATV to care for her chickens and perform chores on her rural property, and her physical limitations prevented her from using her other vehicle or doing the work manually.

The Tribunal found that there was no reasonable alternative to the ATV and that the impoundment posed a threat to the appellant's physical and mental health.

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

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 was triggered by a Medical Condition Report indicating the appellant suffered a seizure presumed to be secondary to alcohol withdrawal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffered a seizure in 2018 and failed to provide requested medical information to assess the likelihood of recurrence.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's physical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that upheld the removal of her pot-bellied pig by an Animal Welfare Inspector.

The appellant argued that the Board violated the rules of procedural fairness by allegedly ignoring her evidence and line of questioning during the hearing.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the appellant had full notice of the case, participated meaningfully in the two-day hearing, and that the Board is not required to reference all evidence in its written decision, only the evidence relevant to its findings.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Tribunal found that the individual appellant failed to demonstrate a change in material circumstances since his previous refusal, barring his reapplication under s. 12 of the Act.

While the corporate appellant was not barred by s. 12, the Tribunal found that the individual appellant's extensive history of unregistered trading, odometer tampering, and impersonation afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the corporate appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which was driven by his son whose licence was suspended for a previous impaired driving conviction.

The appellant argued the licence was not suspended and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to his medical treatments.

The Tribunal found the son's licence remained suspended because he had not completed the required medical assessment after removing his ignition interlock device.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the appellant owned a second roadworthy vehicle that could be used for transportation.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence for a restaurant.

The refusal was based on the past and present conduct of the appellant's sole officer and director, which included a dated criminal record, a recent conviction for driving without a licence, lack of candour during the application process, and selling alcohol after the transfer was refused.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the officer's conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the transfer.

The appellant, a registered motor vehicle dealer, appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration issued by the Registrar.

The Tribunal found that the appellant repeatedly failed to disclose total loss declarations by insurers, failed to accurately disclose accident repair costs, and failed to maintain complete repair records for vehicles sold to consumers.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on his business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

Finding that terms and conditions would not adequately protect the public interest, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the appellant's registration.

The appellant, a residential care licensee, brought a motion to adjourn its appeal of licence conditions before the Licence Appeal Tribunal until the Divisional Court decided its related application for judicial review regarding a cap on the number of children in its care.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the legislative scheme deliberately created parallel remedial processes for licence conditions and capacity caps.

The Tribunal concluded that an adjournment was not necessary to permit an adequate hearing and would contravene the public interest in the expeditious resolution of administrative proceedings.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to cognitive impairment.

The suspension followed a poor performance on the on-road portion of a functional driving assessment, where the evaluator had to physically intervene to prevent a collision.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence established the appellant suffered from cognitive impairment and that the recent driving evaluation demonstrated this condition significantly interfered with her ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed the 90-day suspension of his driver's licence under s. 50.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing he was unable to provide a breath sample due to a medical condition (a maxillary sinus fracture sustained in a motor vehicle accident).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence, which consisted of an emergency room note from 18 hours after the incident, did not establish that the appellant was physically unable to provide a breath sample at the time the demand was made.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's friend, who was driving, was found to have a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that while the impoundment caused financial stress and inconvenience, the appellant failed to demonstrate that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she was able to use Uber, walk, and receive assistance from family members.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a statement of account for boarding costs related to the removal of his three dogs by Animal Welfare Services.

The dogs were removed from the appellant's mother's residence after a compliance order was not met.

The appellant, who relies on Ontario Works, was not notified of the removal until six days later, by which time significant boarding costs had accrued.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the failure to provide timely notice was procedurally unfair and that the accrued costs were beyond the appellant's financial ability to pay.

The Board varied the statements of account to $0 and ordered the immediate return of the dogs to the appellant.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being operated by a suspended driver.

The appellant missed the 15-day appeal deadline by 10 days due to technical difficulties with fax and email, and incorrect information regarding her grounds for appeal.

Applying the factors from Manuel v. Registrar, the Tribunal found the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was short, prejudice to the respondent was minimal, and the appeal had merit based on the 'stolen vehicle' ground.

The motion to extend the time to file the appeal was granted.

The appellant appealed the removal of her seven cats by Animal Welfare Services and a statement of account for their care.

The cats were removed after the appellant failed to comply with orders to address severe flea infestations and unsanitary living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the cats were in distress at the time of removal and that the inspector's entry into the home was lawful based on the consent of the appellant's partner.

The Board declined to return the cats, finding the appellant lacked the financial means and ability to provide adequate care.

However, the Board varied the $1,594.41 statement of account to $0, noting that while the charges were reasonable, the appellant relied solely on ODSP and had no ability to pay.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's former partner took it without permission and was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as using Uber and receiving assistance from her mother.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle after it was driven by his former partner, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence in verifying her licence status before allowing her to drive.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had taken reasonable steps by reviewing her physical driver's licence and a court prohibition order, which appeared to show her suspension had expired.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant fire department appealed a Review Decision by the Fire Marshal that rescinded an Inspection Order requiring the respondent hospital to re-install fire doors (closures) between a third-floor elevator vestibule and an adjacent corridor.

The Inspector found the doors had been removed without a building permit, contrary to the Fire Code and Building Code Act.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the closures were part of a required fire separation and had been removed without a permit.

The Commission revoked the Review Decision and ordered the respondent to re-install the closures to ensure fire safety.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's boyfriend, whose licence was suspended, took the vehicle without her knowledge or consent while she was asleep.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act, as it was taken without consent with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner of it.

The Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.