Katherine Livingstone

The appellant homeowner appealed a Tarion Warranty Corporation decision denying his claim for compensation relating to alleged defects in his new home, specifically cold areas in the kitchen and mudroom.

The builder had previously undertaken repairs based on expert recommendations.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide expert evidence to support his claim that the repairs were insufficient.

Relying on the respondent's expert evidence that the air leakage issues had been resolved and met Ontario Building Code requirements, the Tribunal concluded there was no warrantable defect and directed Tarion not to pay the claim.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her brother drove it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant appealed the impoundment on the ground of exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had access to public transit, taxis, and rides from family members.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her boyfriend was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she owned another vehicle used for day-to-day transportation and her family's routine was unaffected.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal first granted an extension of time to file the appeal, finding reasonable grounds based on the appellant's bona fide intention to appeal and lack of prejudice.

On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The appellant failed to establish due diligence, as her testimony regarding checking the driver's licence status was contradicted by evidence that the licence had expired six years prior.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternative means of transportation available.

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

The appellant filed an appeal 12 days after the 15-day limitation period expired and brought a motion to extend the time to file.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that while the delay was not significant and the appellant lacked knowledge of the impoundment while out of the country, the underlying appeal based on exceptional hardship lacked merit because the appellant had alternative transportation.

The motion to extend time was denied.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after being driven by her son's father while his licence was suspended.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under section 50.2(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, as she was able to walk to work, get rides from co-workers, and rely on neighbours for assistance.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after he was caught driving while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

He filed an appeal almost three months after the 15-day deadline and brought a motion to extend the time to file.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant, and the appeal lacked merit because financial hardship to a suspended driver cannot be considered as exceptional hardship under the regulation.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act after being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code related reason.

The appellant appealed the impoundment on the grounds of due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal on both grounds and confirmed the impoundment, with written reasons to follow.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act for driving while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code related reason.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal late and brought a motion to extend the time for filing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the motion to extend time and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant condominium corporation and the added party developer both sought costs following a written hearing where the appellant's warranty claims were denied.

The appellant sought costs against Tarion, alleging unreasonable conduct regarding the handling of fire rating information for modified doors.

The developer sought costs against the appellant, alleging repeated and unnecessary requests for information.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding that neither party's conduct rose to the high threshold of unreasonableness required to award costs under the Tribunal's rules.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appeal was brought on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to alternative means of transportation, including public transit and assistance from family, and therefore failed to meet the initial requirement of the exceptional hardship test.

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

At the hearing, the respondent failed to provide the correct Notice to Registrar and acknowledged there was no evidence confirming who was driving the vehicle at the time of the impoundment.

The Tribunal found that without evidence of the driver's identity, there was no evidence that the driver's licence was suspended.

The appellant met her onus under s. 50.2(3)(a) of the Act, and the Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of their motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the appeal and ordered the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to release the vehicle, with written reasons to follow.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a person whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to meet the first prong of the exceptional hardship test, as she had alternative means of transportation available, including a second vehicle and assistance from a friend.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing his licence was not suspended or subject to an ignition interlock condition, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was driving in contravention of an active ignition interlock condition.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship ground, noting the appellant had alternative transportation available through his parents and that financial inconvenience cannot be considered.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed Tarion's decision denying warranty claims for seven items relating to the common elements of the building, including security fobs, water stains, emergency generator issues, and fire door modifications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove any breach of the statutory warranties under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

For several items, the appellant disentitled itself from warranty coverage by failing to notify the vendor and allow an opportunity to repair before hiring outside contractors.

For the fire doors, the tribunal found the appellant's concerns about the fire rating were speculative and unsupported by expert testing.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed Tarion's decision denying warranty claims for seven items relating to the building's common elements.

The claims included missing security fobs, water damage, generator and boiler failures, and concerns regarding the fire rating of modified unit doors.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove breaches of the Ontario Building Code or the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for several items.

For other items, the Tribunal found the appellant disentitled itself from warranty coverage by failing to notify the vendor and allow it an opportunity to repair the alleged defects before hiring outside contractors.

The Tribunal also declined to extend the time for filing first-year warranty claims, finding no extraordinary circumstances.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after a male acquaintance, who was driving the vehicle, was stopped by police and found to be driving while suspended.

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant, who suffers from significant medical conditions and is the sole caregiver for her disabled mother, had no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment resulted in a threat to the health and safety of a person ordinarily transported by the vehicle, and ordered the release of the motor vehicle.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his appeal of a vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant argued that the impoundment violated his Charter rights and that the Tribunal made errors of law and fact.

The Tribunal found that the impoundment was an administrative act that did not attract Charter scrutiny under sections 8, 11, or 12.

The Tribunal also found no errors of law or fact, no false evidence, and no new evidence that would have changed the outcome.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The appellant appealed a proposal to refuse him a cannabis retail manager licence due to a prior conviction for selling cannabis without authorization.

He brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of section 5(4)2 of the Cannabis Licence Act, 2018, arguing it violated sections 7, 11, and 12 of the Charter.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Charter provisions do not protect pure economic interests or apply to administrative licence refusals.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's argument that a facial error on his summons negated his conviction, ruling it an impermissible collateral attack.