Keith Penner

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to refuse its application for a liquor licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's husband, who was the intended general manager, had previously rented the premises for events under Special Occasion Permits that resulted in neighbourhood disturbances, violence, and breaches of permit conditions.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant made false statements on the application to conceal her husband's involvement due to his outstanding criminal charges.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was disentitled to a licence under the Liquor Licence Act because there were reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on with integrity and honesty, false statements were made, and issuing the licence would not be in the public interest.

The Registrar was directed to refuse the application.

The appellant applied for a new liquor sales licence for TD Place, a sports stadium.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving an objection from a local resident concerned about public disturbances.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no causal connection between alcohol served at the premises and past rowdiness, and was satisfied with the appellant's comprehensive security and staff training plans.

The Tribunal concluded the objector failed to prove the licence was contrary to the public interest and directed the Registrar to issue the licence.

The Applicant appealed a Tarion Warranty Corporation decision denying claims regarding mould in the basement, incorrect stair stain colour, central vacuum rough-in location, and secondary compensation costs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the home fit for habitation but ordered Tarion to pay half the estimated cost for further mould remediation, noting the Applicant's failure to mitigate humidity.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for the stain colour, central vacuum, and secondary compensation, finding the latter excluded under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for secondary damages related to mould contamination in their new home.

The builder had gone bankrupt, and Tarion had previously remediated the mould issue.

The applicants sought compensation for cleaning clothing and damaged personal effects, and requested further mould testing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim for secondary damages, finding it had no jurisdiction to order such payments as they are explicitly excluded under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

However, the Tribunal directed Tarion to proceed with further destructive testing and remediation as offered in its Supplementary Decision Letter to ensure the home was safe and habitable.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for secondary damages related to mould contamination in their new home.

The applicants sought compensation for cleaning clothing and damaged personal effects.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim for secondary damages, finding that the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act explicitly excludes such damages.

However, the Tribunal directed Tarion to proceed with further destructive testing and remediation work as outlined in a supplementary decision letter to ensure the home is safe and habitable.

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

The Applicant's previous registration was revoked in 2006, resulting in a Consent Order prohibiting his involvement in a specific dealership.

In his new application, he failed to disclose a 2011 conviction for making a false statement under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to provide full disclosure and breached the 2006 Consent Order by continuing to be involved with the dealership.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposal to Refuse Registration.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for reimbursement of a home inspector's invoice, replacement of hardwood flooring, and installation of a new kitchen sink in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the cost of consultation services is not a prescribed damage under Regulation 892.

Furthermore, the claims for the flooring and sink were not warranted substitutions because the specific items requested by the applicants were not explicitly detailed in the written Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The applicant, operator of Tailgators, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming refusing to remove conditions on its liquor licence.

The applicant sought to modify the patio closing time to keep patrons within a glass-enclosed sound barrier rather than congregating in the parking lot.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances, noting that the noise complaints now stemmed from the parking lot rather than the licensed area.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to modify the condition, allowing the patio to remain open until midnight without alcohol service after 10:45 p.m.