Laura Hodgson

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son was caught driving it without an ignition interlock device, which was a condition of the son's licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to alternative vehicles, including his wife's car and a vehicle provided by his employer, and therefore failed to meet the test for exceptional hardship.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment on the ground of exceptional hardship, arguing she needed the vehicle to assist her immune-compromised daughter.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that there were no reasonable alternative transportation options available, such as using her husband's or sister's vehicle, or taking a taxi or Uber.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that confirmed the denial of a deposit refund under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant argued that new evidence was available that was not before the Tribunal when the decision was made.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the documents relied upon were already tendered and considered at the original hearing, and that the appellant was merely attempting to relitigate the same issues.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellants' registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson after the individual appellant was found to have received prohibited assistance while completing the mandatory online Automotive Certification course.

The appellant appealed the proposal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the evidence of the exam proctor and college staff established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant cheated on the exam.

Given the appellant's prior discipline history for failing to disclose vehicle information, the Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with honesty, integrity, and in accordance with the law.

The proposed order to revoke the registrations was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's finding of misconduct and penalty of demotion.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal because the appellant failed to perfect it by obtaining the necessary transcripts of the disciplinary hearing.

Despite multiple pre-hearing conferences and directions from the Commission, the appellant failed to provide the transcripts or establish that the audio recordings were incapable of transcription.

The Commission found that the appellant had not shown a bona fide intention to pursue the appeal diligently.

The respondent's motion was granted, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant entered into an agreement to purchase a new home, but the transaction failed to close after multiple occupancy delays and the appellant's inability to secure financing.

The appellant sought a deposit refund from Tarion, which was denied.

On appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the appellant argued she had exercised a statutory right to rescind and that the vendor fundamentally breached the contract by changing the locks and providing insufficient notice of closing.

The Tribunal found no evidence of a statutory rescission and held that the vendor's actions did not amount to a fundamental breach, as the home was substantially complete and the vendor was ready to close.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion's denial of the deposit refund was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposed order to refuse to issue him horseperson-groom and horseperson-owner licences under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 1992.

The Registrar refused the licences based on the appellant's extensive criminal and regulatory record, including fraud and securities offences, outstanding restitution orders, and his failure to fully disclose his record on the licence application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the refusal, finding reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act in accordance with the law, honesty, and integrity.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of two counts of discreditable conduct and imposing a penalty of demotion from First Class to Fourth Class Constable.

The charges arose from an off-duty domestic altercation where the appellant pushed his estranged wife.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer reasonably admitted and weighed hearsay evidence, made reasonable findings of fact supported by the appellant's own admissions, and appropriately applied the dispositional factors.

The penalty of demotion, while severe, was found to be within the reasonable range of outcomes.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of insubordination for conducting an unauthorized CPIC query on his wife's vehicle.

He argued the query was part of an investigation into civilian dispatchers and that the Hearing Officer denied him procedural fairness by refusing disclosure of notes from a 2015 conversation regarding a similar complaint.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the 2015 notes were irrelevant to whether the 2018 query was for official police business.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the query was for personal reasons as reasonable.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct, neglect of duty, and deceit, as well as the penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved operating a police vehicle with an expired licence, failing to immediately report a collision, having the vehicle inspected by an unauthorized mechanic outside his jurisdiction, and deceiving his supervisor about the incident.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusions reasonable and the penalty of dismissal proportionate, particularly given the appellant's recent prior discipline resulting in a demotion.

The Corporation of the City of Dryden applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission for consent to abolish the Dryden Police Service and transition to the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Commission found that the proposed transition would provide adequate and effective policing services and that appropriate severance agreements had been made with the affected members.

The Commission granted consent to terminate the employment of the members for the purpose of abolishing the police force.

The applicant, operating a licensed establishment in Wasaga Beach, applied to remove two conditions from its liquor licence that prohibited live music, dancing, and parties on its patio.

The conditions were imposed in 2011 following an objection by a neighboring business owner who no longer owns that business.

The applicant argued that Covid-19 restrictions made the patio the primary serving area and that the conditions were ambiguous and outdated.

The Registrar took no position.

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

The appellant police officer appealed a hearing officer's decision ordering his dismissal for discreditable conduct and insubordination, including an impaired driving incident while on duty.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh medical evidence regarding his PTSD and alcohol addiction, and argued the hearing officer erred by proceeding in his absence and failing to properly weigh his mental health issues.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence as it could have been obtained with due diligence.

The Commission upheld the dismissal, finding the hearing officer reasonably weighed the disposition factors and that the seriousness of the misconduct justified dismissal despite the appellant's mental health conditions.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of deceit and discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The misconduct involved the appellant interfering in an impaired driving investigation of a wedding guest and subsequently lying about his involvement.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by not recusing himself for bias, refusing to order disclosure of prosecution witness notes, and misapprehending voice identification evidence.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, upholding the claim of litigation privilege over the witness notes, and concluding the Hearing Officer's findings of guilt were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to fourth class constable for 18 months, imposed after he pled guilty to discreditable conduct.

The misconduct involved fabricating text messages to disparage his ex-wife's new partner and improperly registering individuals as confidential informants to conceal his actions.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer erred by effectively penalizing him for deceit and insubordination, which were not charged, and that the penalty was unduly harsh.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's inferences were reasonably drawn from the Agreed Statement of Facts and the penalty was justified given the serious and protracted nature of the misconduct.

The appellant's motor vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment, arguing that she believed the licence was valid and had exercised due diligence by asking to see it months prior.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the licence was objectively suspended and that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as she only took a cursory look at an expired licence where the expiry date was covered.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding her guilty of discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from an incident where the appellant and three other officers responded to a noise complaint and forcibly entered an apartment without a warrant.

The Hearing Officer found the entry unlawful as there were no exigent circumstances, and held the appellant responsible as the supervising officer who directed the entry, while acquitting the other three officers.

On appeal, the appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapplied the test for discreditable conduct and rendered inconsistent verdicts.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's conclusion that no emergency justified the entry was reasonable, and that the appellant's own evidence establishing her supervisory role and direction to breach the door justified the different verdicts.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the Registrar's suspension of his driver's licence for medical reasons.

The appellant sought to introduce new evidence, including a Substance Use Assessment Form and video files documenting mental health incidents.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the appellant had previously declined an adjournment to obtain the form, the video evidence could have been obtained prior to the hearing, and the new evidence would not likely have changed the result.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence on medical grounds following a report from an emergency department psychiatrist.

The appellant failed to provide a required Mental Health Disorder Form from a treating physician and lacked insight into his psychiatric condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a psychiatric condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence on medical grounds following a report indicating a substance use disorder and a psychiatric condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's bipolar disorder was stable and that she did not have an active substance use disorder that would significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision and ordered the reinstatement of the appellant's licence.