Katherine Livingstone

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her partner was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She argued that she exercised due diligence by checking his licence once, 1.5 years prior, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her health issues and childcare responsibilities.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that checking the licence once did not meet the standard of due diligence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as she had alternatives for transportation and the impoundment did not pose a threat to health or safety.

The appellant appealed the 90-day administrative suspension of his driver's licence for failing to provide a breath sample, arguing he was medically unable to do so due to a prior chest injury.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish his inability to provide a suitable sample.

The Tribunal accepted the investigating officer's evidence that the appellant made no medical complaints at the time and was non-compliant with instructions.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by asking her friend if he had his licence, and claimed the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her need to care for her children and elderly father during the pandemic.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as simply asking if the driver had a licence was insufficient.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternative transportation options and no threat to health or safety was established.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it was taken without her knowledge and consent.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver, marking the second such occurrence in two years.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing despite multiple accommodations and reminders from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as abandoned and confirmed the impoundment, finding the appellant failed to meet her burden of proof.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was impounded because she was driving without an ignition interlock device as required by a condition on her licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine her licence status, relying on an Ontario driver's abstract that indicated her licence was not suspended and had no outstanding reinstatement conditions.

The Tribunal found that the appellant exercised due diligence and ordered the release of the vehicle.

The applicant, a corporate licensee operating a restaurant, applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to remove security and camera conditions from its liquor licence.

The conditions had been imposed on the previous licensee.

The applicant argued that a change in circumstances, including new management, a shift to a family-focused operation, and the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, justified the removal.

The Registrar consented to the application, noting the applicant's clean regulatory history and that the conditions were originally intended to address risks unrelated to the current applicant.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act and ordered the conditions removed.

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was taken without his permission and was therefore stolen.

The Tribunal found that the stepson took the vehicle while the appellant was asleep, without consent, and with the intent to temporarily deprive the appellant of its use.

Applying the Divisional Court's interpretation of 'stolen' in the impoundment context, the Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of section 50.2(3)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal was granted and the vehicle ordered released.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle on the ground of exceptional hardship after it was driven by his son whose licence was suspended.

The appellant failed to dial into the teleconference hearing.

The respondent's agent presented evidence of the impoundment and the driver's suspended licence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment, as the appellant adduced no evidence to establish exceptional hardship.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's friend was caught driving it with a suspended and expired licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by relying on a photocopy of the driver's licence and his verbal assurances.

The Tribunal found that a reasonable and cautious person would have taken additional steps to verify the licence's validity.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse his registration as a Category Two gaming assistant.

The Registrar refused the application due to discrepancies between the appellant's disclosure and his actual criminal and driving records, which included multiple crimes of dishonesty and driving while suspended.

The appellant claimed memory loss from a 2013 stroke caused the omissions.

The Tribunal rejected this explanation, finding it lacked credibility and medical corroboration.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act with honesty, integrity, or in accordance with the law, and ordered the Registrar to carry out the refusal.

The applicant licensee applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that restricted the hours of sale and service of alcohol on its patio.

The applicant provided evidence that an original objector and several neighbours now supported extending the patio hours.

The respondent Registrar agreed there was a change in circumstances and consented to the removal of the condition.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the condition removed, to be replaced with a condition allowing daily service until 10:15 pm.

The appellant winery applied for a Tied House Licence, which would allow it to sell alcohol products other than its own and host on-site food service events.

Several local residents objected to the application, raising concerns about potential increases in noise and traffic, loss of privacy, and alleged past bylaw infractions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were largely speculative and not substantiated by sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the objectors failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that granting the licence was not in the public interest, and directed the Registrar to issue the licence without conditions.

The applicant, the new owner of a licensed establishment, applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited persons under 19 years of age from entering the premises.

The condition was imposed in 2006 under previous ownership due to underage drinking infractions.

The respondent consented to the removal, noting there had been no further infractions since the condition was imposed and none under the new ownership.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances under s. 14(2) of the Act and ordered the condition removed.

The appellant appealed the Director's decisions to amend the terms and conditions of its licence to operate a youth residence and to subsequently suspend the licence.

The Tribunal found that the standard of review for the Director's decisions under the CYFSA is correctness, with no deference owed.

The Tribunal upheld the amended conditions, finding them appropriate given the serious concerns regarding staffing shortages, medication errors, and the inability of staff to manage high-risk youth.

The Tribunal also confirmed the suspension of the licence, concluding that the cumulative circumstances, culminating in an incident where two youths required hospitalization after absconding and consuming alcohol, constituted an immediate threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after the vehicle was involved in an accident and police suspected her boyfriend, a suspended driver, was driving.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove the boyfriend was driving at the time of the accident.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence that she did not consent to her boyfriend taking the vehicle, satisfying the statutory ground that the vehicle was stolen at the time of the impoundment.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The applicant sought to remove a condition on its liquor licence that restricted the hours of sale and service of alcohol on its patio.

The condition had been imposed due to an objection from the former ward Councillor.

The applicant demonstrated a change in circumstances, as the new Councillor supported extending the hours and confirmed there were no complaints against the establishment.

The respondent consented to the application, and the Tribunal ordered the condition removed pursuant to section 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The applicant, owner of a licensed establishment, applied to remove several conditions attached to its liquor licence.

The establishment had shifted its operating focus from a nightclub to a concert hall and event venue.

Following discussions, the respondent agreed that the conditions were either outside the mandate of the AGCO, unenforceable, or mandated by statute.

The police also did not oppose the removal of the condition requiring off-duty officers.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of all requested conditions.

The applicant, a licensed establishment, applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited two individuals with prior bookmaking convictions from entering the premises.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances, noting the individuals had no further criminal involvement, were engaged in community fundraising with the applicant, and the Registrar did not oppose the removal.

The application was granted and the condition was removed, while other conditions prohibiting their business involvement remained.

The applicant applied to remove conditions on its liquor licence restricting the hours of sale and service of alcohol.

The conditions were originally imposed due to objections from a neighbouring resident.

The applicant demonstrated a change in circumstances, specifically that the sole objector no longer resided next to the establishment.

The Registrar did not oppose the application given the lack of negative compliance history.

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

The applicant applied under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act to remove four conditions from its liquor licence, citing a change in circumstances since the licence was granted in 2000.

The respondent agreed that three conditions were unenforceable and took no position on the application.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances, noting that the local community council had extended operating hours without patio music restrictions, the streetscape had changed significantly, and no public objections were received after notice was posted.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the conditions.