Katherine Livingstone

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after being driven by his father, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal four days late and brought a motion to extend the time to file.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay would prejudice the respondent, and the appeal lacked merit.

The motion to extend time was denied and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke the registration of Legacy Auto Center as a motor vehicle dealer and refuse the registration of Alan Sabri as a salesperson.

The Registrar alleged the appellants breached a 2015 Consent Order condition requiring them to take immediate steps to resolve outstanding judgments and report monthly to OMVIC.

The Registrar also alleged their past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief they would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellants breached the monthly reporting condition after their lawyers ceased communication with OMVIC, they had taken steps to resolve the judgments.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to establish that the appellants' past conduct warranted revocation or refusal, noting no evidence of consumer harm.

The Tribunal substituted its opinion for the Registrar's, directing the reinstatement and continuation of the registrations subject to strict terms and conditions.

The appellant applied for a cannabis retail manager licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the application.

The appellant failed to request a hearing within the required 15-day period and subsequently filed a motion to extend the time to appeal, over 125 days late.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test from Manuel and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant without reasonable explanation, and the appeal had little likelihood of success.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The applicant applied to remove three conditions from its liquor licence regarding patio capacity, patio closing hours, and live entertainment.

The Registrar consented to the removal, acknowledging a change in circumstances since the licence was granted 29 years ago.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of the conditions, with the applicant consenting to a new condition prohibiting live entertainment or music on the patio.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after she allowed an unlicenced friend to drive it.

She appealed the impoundment on the ground of exceptional hardship under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that there was no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she had been successfully using public transit and walking for work, medical appointments, and groceries.

The appellants brought a motion to extend the time to file an appeal from a Notice of Proposal to Refuse their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The appellants filed their appeal approximately 34 days after the statutory 15-day appeal period expired.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test from Manuel v. Registrar, finding that the appellants lacked a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was significant without reasonable justification, and the appeal lacked merit given the appellant's past conduct and failure to demonstrate a material change in circumstances.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

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 Criminal Code convictions.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence regarding her lack of alternative transportation and lack of knowledge of the driver's record to be inconsistent and unreliable.

As the appellant failed to demonstrate that no reasonable alternative to the vehicle was available, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after it was stopped while being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained.

The Tribunal found that the driver took the vehicle without the appellant's consent and with the intent to deprive him of it, at least temporarily.

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

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

The Registrar alleged the appellant falsified information relating to the sale and financing of 15 vehicles while working as a Financial Services Manager, resulting in over $1 million in losses to lenders.

The Registrar also alleged she made false statements on two subsequent applications for registration regarding the reason for her termination.

The Tribunal found the appellant's conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that she would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and that she intentionally made false statements on her applications.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to refuse registration.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their second-year warranty claims for disintegrating front precast steps and water penetration in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal admitted the evidence of Tarion's warranty services representative as a participant expert.

The Tribunal found that the damage to the steps was caused by the appellants' use of salt or de-icer, which is excluded from warranty coverage as improper maintenance.

The Tribunal also held that the water penetration claim was statute-barred because it was not raised within the two-year warranty period.

In the alternative, the Tribunal found the water penetration was caused by ice damming rather than a warrantable construction defect.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative means of transportation during the impoundment period, including assistance from family, friends, and taxis.

As the appellant failed to meet the initial requirement of showing no alternative transportation was available, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after being driven by her son, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal and a motion to extend the time to appeal after the 15-day statutory deadline had passed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant, granting the extension would prejudice the respondent, and the appeal lacked merit.

The motion to extend time was denied and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a registered gaming assistant, was suspended by the Registrar after being charged with sexual interference and sexual assault.

The appellant appealed the suspension to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that, given the serious nature of the outstanding charges, allowing the appellant to maintain his registration would undermine public confidence in the gaming industry.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's order of suspension as necessary in the public interest.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after her partner was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She filed an appeal 16 days after the 15-day appeal period expired and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Tribunal found she lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, as she had the impoundment form but did not review it.

The Tribunal also found her proposed grounds of appeal—that the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship—had a very weak chance of success.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

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 initiated after a physician reported the appellant for having an uncontrolled alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, noting his recent roadside suspension and lack of evidence of 12 months of abstinence.

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

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a suspended driver.

She argued that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine the driver's licence status and that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's evidence regarding due diligence to be vague and inconsistent, and concluding she failed to take all reasonable care to ensure the driver had a valid licence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle for her medical and personal needs.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, that he exercised due diligence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's evidence regarding the alleged theft lacked credibility, he failed to verify the driver's licence of the person operating the vehicle at the time of impoundment, and alternative transportation was available, negating the claim of exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after she lent it to a friend who was a suspended driver.

She argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found she failed to exercise due diligence, as her cursory check of the driver's licence was insufficient.

However, the Tribunal found the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the appellant had no alternative transportation to attend necessary medical and physiotherapy appointments for her severe health conditions.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The applicant sought to remove a condition from its liquor licence that required it to notify specific objectors prior to any application to transfer the licence.

The condition was imposed in 2002.

The applicant demonstrated that the original objectors no longer resided at their previous addresses, and the respondent agreed that there had been a change in circumstances and that it no longer sought to impose such conditions.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the condition removed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant knew his licence was suspended and failed to take reasonable care to ascertain his obligations, thus failing the due diligence test.

The Tribunal also found that alternative transportation was available and that the appellant could not claim exceptional hardship as he was the suspended driver who caused the impoundment.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.