Laurie Sanford

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for unredacted copies of the AGM sign-in sheet, ballots, and proxies.

The respondent condominium corporation agreed to provide the records but maintained it was required by the Condominium Act, 1998 to redact information identifying other owners or units.

The Tribunal held that the corporation did not have discretion to provide unredacted records and directed the corporation to provide the redacted records upon payment of a reasonable production fee of $102.15.

No costs or penalties were awarded.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a removal order and compliance orders issued by the OSPCA.

The appellant missed the statutory five-day deadline to file the appeal.

The Animal Care Review Board held that it is a creature of statute and the governing Act does not grant it the authority to extend the time limit for bringing an appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was denied and the appeal could not proceed.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested various records from the respondent condominium corporation, including details of a special assessment refund, engineering reports, service requests, and board minutes.

The respondent delayed providing the records, citing bad faith and privacy concerns, and demanded an arbitrary $500 fee.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the records, subject to redactions of other owners' identifying information.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the records, permitted the respondent to charge reasonable preparation costs ($24/hour and $0.20/page), and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $612 in costs and a $750 penalty for refusing the records without a reasonable excuse.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested paper copies of board meeting minutes and records relating to mould removal from the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent acknowledged the applicant's entitlement to the records but refused to provide them, arguing the mandatory request form was improperly completed.

The Tribunal found the form was completed in sufficient detail and ordered the respondent to provide the records.

The Tribunal also awarded the applicant $500 in costs and imposed a $500 penalty on the respondent for refusing the records without a reasonable excuse.

The appellant's seven cats were removed by the OSPCA.

The appellant filed an appeal to the Animal Care Review Board four business days after the statutory deadline and requested an extension of time on compassionate grounds.

The Board held that it is a creature of statute and the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act does not grant it the authority to extend the time limit for bringing an appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was denied and the appeal could not proceed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle after his daughter loaned it to a driver whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that his daughter exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the daughter failed to inspect or verify the driver's licence, and that alternative transportation options were available, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a real estate broker.

After multiple adjournments and failing to provide required disclosure, the appellant failed to attend a scheduled case conference.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to dismiss the appeal for abandonment.

The appellant did not respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing pursuant to Rule 3.4 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claim for warranty coverage under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act for water penetration into her home.

The tribunal found that the water penetration was primarily caused by ice damming.

While ice damming itself is a naturally occurring phenomenon and not explicitly warranted, the tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a home built in compliance with the Ontario Building Code and the warranty of workmanship.

The tribunal accepted expert evidence that the home's attic insulation, eaves protection, and starter strips violated the Ontario Building Code.

Tarion was ordered to repair these specific defects, though the appellant was denied a broader order requiring Tarion to identify and correct the entire water penetration problem due to her failure to comply with a prior order to conduct an engineering inspection.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested records from the respondent condominium corporation regarding reserve fund expenditures for pool and walkway repairs, as well as unredacted board minutes concerning his window replacement.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent had provided all required records, including interim reserve fund reports and full board minutes with explanations.

The tribunal concluded that the respondent met its disclosure obligations under the Condominium Act, 1998, and declined to award compensation or costs to either party, finding no evidence of intentional delay or bad faith.

The appellant distillery applied for a liquor licence for its premises and an adjoining patio.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents regarding past zoning and fire safety compliance, as well as concerns about noise and neighbourhood character.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no persuasive evidence that the appellant's past conduct disentitled it to a licence or that the operation was inconsistent with the neighbourhood's character.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the licence, subject to conditions limiting the patio's capacity, restricting its hours of operation, and prohibiting amplified music.

Yongehurst Distillery Corp. brought a motion for costs against two added parties (objectors) following a successful hearing to review its liquor licence application.

Yongehurst alleged the added parties acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith by delaying proceedings, failing to comply with disclosure orders, refusing to settle, and presenting incomplete evidence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the proceedings were lengthy and caused Yongehurst financial hardship, the added parties' conduct did not rise to the level required to justify a costs award under Rule 19.1.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a reported cognitive impairment.

The suspension followed a Medical Condition Report from a hospital physician and a subsequent Cognitive Assessment Form from the appellant's neurologist, which diagnosed mild cognitive impairment and noted potential side effects from his medications.

The Registrar required the appellant to complete a functional driving evaluation, which he declined due to cost and his belief that it was unnecessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's mild cognitive impairment and medication side effects were likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and confirmed the suspension.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a general licence following a reported seizure.

The Minister argued the seizure could be epileptic, requiring a five-year seizure-free period under the CCMTA Standards.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the seizure was epileptic, noting it was an isolated event likely provoked by untreated pneumonia.

The Tribunal concluded the seizure did not significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and ordered the reinstatement of his commercial licence.

The Appellants appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke their liquor licences due to breaches of conditions.

The Tribunal previously found that conditions on both licences were breached when a former manager failed to report criminal charges and continued to be involved in management.

On the issue of sanction, the Registrar sought revocation, while the Appellants sought a three-day suspension.

The Tribunal ordered a 5-day suspension for one restaurant and a 10-day suspension for the other, along with new conditions strictly prohibiting the former manager from entering the premises or having any involvement in the businesses.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension under section 50.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant argued mistaken identity on the philosophical basis that he was not the same man he was five years ago, but admitted he was the person who provided the breath sample and whose licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the only applicable statutory ground for appeal was mistaken identity in the literal sense.

Because the appellant admitted his identity, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days for permitting drunkenness on its premises.

Following a hearing where the Tribunal found the appellant had permitted drunkenness, the parties made a joint submission agreeing to a 14-day suspension.

The Tribunal accepted the joint submission, finding the 14-day suspension appropriate to protect the public, and ordered the suspension on consent.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licences of two restaurants owned by the appellant, alleging breaches of licence conditions restricting her son's involvement in the businesses and the provision of false information on applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant breached a condition on each licence by allowing her son to be involved in management and by his failure to report criminal charges.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not knowingly provide false information on her applications and that her conduct did not afford reasonable grounds for belief that she would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The parties were directed to make written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing ordered a $6,000 monetary penalty against the appellant establishment for allegedly serving alcohol to three minors.

The appellant appealed the order.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar's case relied entirely on uncorroborated hearsay evidence from inspectors who spoke to the minors, who had demonstrably lied about their identification and contact information.

Preferring the direct testimony of the server who denied serving the minors, the Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence that alcohol was sold, served, or consumed by the minors.

The monetary penalty was set aside.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his motor vehicle inspection station (MVIS) licence.

The Director alleged the appellant made false statements on his application and breached the Highway Traffic Act during operations.

The Tribunal found that the appellant submitted a fabricated zoning letter, forged his mechanic's signature on the application and numerous inspection certificates, and failed to maintain required records.

Concluding that the appellant was indifferent to his statutory obligations and posed a risk to public safety, the Tribunal directed the Director to carry out the revocation.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days after inspectors found a severely intoxicated patron vomiting and unresponsive at the appellant's karaoke bar.

The appellant appealed, arguing it was in the process of removing the patron safely.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for permitting drunkenness and found that the appellant knew the patron was intoxicated but failed to remove him safely within a reasonable period of time.

Given the patron's medical distress, the Tribunal noted that calling an ambulance would have been the appropriate response rather than relying on an Uber or the patron's friends.

The Tribunal found the appellant liable and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the appropriate sanction.