Kevin Lundy

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration of the appellant as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties waived a hearing and consented to an order directing the Registrar to register the appellant subject to specific conditions, including restrictions on acting as a General Manager or having direct supervisory authority over registered salespersons.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke her registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

She brought a motion to compel the respondent to disclose various documents forthwith and requested costs.

The Tribunal denied the motion as premature, noting that the respondent had not refused disclosure and the deadline set in a prior case conference order had not yet passed.

No costs were ordered as the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable.

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 police discovered it being driven by the appellant's daughter's partner, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen by deception, that he exercised due diligence in checking the driver's licence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the driver did not intend to deprive the owner of the vehicle, the owner failed to exercise due diligence by relying on a six-year-old image of the licence, and no exceptional hardship was proven as alternatives were available.

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

The vehicle was impounded after police discovered it being driven by her son, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle available, as she was able to rely on co-workers for transportation and missed no work or essential appointments.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to an uncontrolled alcohol use disorder.

The appellant argued that she only engaged in weekend binge drinking and never drove while intoxicated.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a severe alcohol use disorder that is not yet under control, given her recent relapses and short periods of abstinence.

The Tribunal concluded that her medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The Appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse to renew its registration as a new home builder.

The Registrar alleged that the Appellant breached warranties, failed to indemnify the Guarantee Fund for resulting losses, demonstrated insufficient technical competence, and that the past conduct of its sole officer and director afforded reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on with integrity and honesty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to resolve numerous serious defects, including Code violations, and failed to indemnify Tarion for the costs of repairs.

The Tribunal also found that the Appellant's officer engaged in aggressive and disrespectful conduct towards homeowners and Tarion staff.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to refuse to renew the Appellant's licence.

The appellants appealed a Tarion Warranty Corporation decision denying warranty coverage for water penetration and mould in their basement, and for exterior cladding defects on their roof.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the appellants voided the warranty for the basement issues by unilaterally removing and replacing drywall and excavating a trench before Tarion could inspect the alleged defects.

Regarding the roof, the Tribunal found that the appellants failed to prove that water had penetrated the building envelope or that the roof's design constituted a warrantable defect in workmanship or materials.

The Tribunal also gave very little weight to the appellants' roofing expert due to bias and lack of independence.

The appellants' request for costs and engineering expenses was denied.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspended the appellant's commercial driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically an alcohol use disorder.

The appellant appealed the suspension to the Licence Appeal Tribunal but failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence and found that the appellant's history of cyclical relapses and failure to provide updated medical information demonstrating abstinence supported the Registrar's decision.

The Tribunal confirmed the licence suspension, concluding that the appellant's addiction to alcohol is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely.