Luisa Ritacca

The respondent, Toronto Fire Services, issued an Order to Close the third floor of the appellant's building, alleging it was an illegal rooming house lacking a second exit.

The appellant appealed to the Fire Safety Commission, which automatically stayed the order.

The respondent moved to lift the stay pending the appeal hearing, arguing it was necessary in the interest of public safety.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent had known of the risks for over a year and failed to establish an urgent need to displace the tenants before a hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed five review decisions made by the Fire Marshal regarding fire inspection orders for residential buildings housing seasonal offshore workers.

The central issue was whether the buildings should be classified as 'dwelling units' or 'boarding, lodging and rooming houses' under the Fire Code.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the living arrangements, which were contingent on employment and controlled by the employer, met the criteria for boarding, lodging and rooming houses.

The Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the orders with amended compliance dates, finding the ordered measures necessary to ensure fire safety.

The appellant, a tenant operating an auto body repair shop on the main floor of a mixed-use building, appealed an Inspection Order and an Order to Close issued by the Toronto Fire Services.

The orders were issued due to fire safety risks posed by the combination of the industrial occupancy and residential units on the second floor.

The Fire Safety Commission found that while the orders were substantively necessary for fire safety, the Order to Close was invalid because the Fire Marshal's Extension of Delegation of Authority did not explicitly delegate the power to issue such orders to Deputy Fire Chiefs.

Consequently, the Commission confirmed the Inspection Order with a modified compliance date but rescinded the Order to Close.

The appellant, owner of an apartment building, appealed a review decision upholding an inspection order that required her to separate exit stairways from the remainder of the building with a 30-minute fire separation.

The appellant did not dispute the fire safety risk but argued that, as a small landlord, she should not be required to follow the formal alternative solution process under the Ontario Fire Code, which requires retaining an engineer or architect.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the alternative solution process is mandatory and cannot be waived.

The Commission confirmed the inspection order and provided amended compliance dates.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended for medical reasons.

He appealed the suspension but subsequently provided updated medical information, leading the Registrar to lift the suspension and the Tribunal to close the file.

Nine months later, the appellant attempted to revive the appeal after learning he was required to submit further medical reports.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that it had been abandoned and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to prevent the Minister from requiring ongoing medical information from a licence holder.

The appellant appealed a review decision upholding an inspection order that required him to reduce combustible materials in his home to maintain clearances from appliances and ceilings, and to provide clear access to exits.

The appellant did not dispute the fire safety concerns but requested more time to comply due to personal circumstances, including his wife's illness.

The Fire Safety Commission found the ordered measures necessary to ensure fire safety but amended the order to extend the compliance date.

The appellant appealed a review decision that upheld an inspection order requiring him to remove combustible materials from his apartment unit to maintain a 1-metre clearance from kitchen appliances, ceilings, and egress pathways.

The appellant, an artist who used his unit as a live/work space, argued the requirements were unnecessary and that he had complied with a previous verbal order.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the excessive accumulation of combustible materials posed a significant fire safety risk by acting as fuel, trapping smoke, and obstructing egress for both the occupant and emergency responders.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her son was stopped by police while driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence because she honestly believed her adult son had a valid licence and had no reason to suspect it was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to take any independent steps, such as asking her son about his licence status, to verify he was legally permitted to drive before allowing him to use her vehicle.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons following a brief hypoglycemic episode and loss of consciousness in a grocery store.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant, who has type 1 diabetes, demonstrated significant insight into managing her disease, including regular monitoring and awareness of early warning signs.

The Tribunal concluded that her medical condition was not likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.

The Greater Sudbury Fire Services brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of an Inspection Order pending an appeal by the appellant.

The fire department argued the stay should be lifted so it could proceed with prosecution due to the appellant's failure to comply with a previous consent order to obtain a building permit.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant's failure to comply with the consent order did not give rise to an issue impacting the interest of public safety sufficient to warrant lifting the stay under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a motor vehicle collision and reports of diabetes and hypoglycemia.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's type 1 diabetes was well-controlled and that the single hypoglycemic episode at the time of the collision did not constitute a severe episode requiring a six-month suspension under the CCMTA Medical Standards.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's medical condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence following a medical report of alcohol dependence and a suspected alcohol withdrawal seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed medical records showing persistently elevated liver enzymes and hospital admissions related to alcohol use.

The appellant refused to provide updated biochemical test results to prove abstinence or reduced consumption.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal found that the appellant is addicted to alcohol to an extent that significantly impairs her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration as a collector under the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act.

The Registrar proposed refusal because the appellant failed to disclose outstanding criminal charges on his application, having previously been refused registration for the same reason.

The Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly provided false information, constituting an offence under the Act, and that there were reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was ordered to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her fiancé drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant filed an appeal of the impoundment 20 days after the 15-day appeal period expired.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appellant's motion for an extension of time, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, significant delay, and potential prejudice to the respondent.

The appellant's G2 driver's licence was medically suspended in 2007 and expired in 2008.

In 2016, the suspension was lifted and the appellant was issued a G1 licence because he had been unlicensed for more than three years.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing the Minister should have included his prior time as a G2 licensee in the time computation.

The Minister brought a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the Minister's decision was not an imposition or removal of conditions under section 32(5)(b)(i) of the Highway Traffic Act, but rather a standard application of the Act and Regulations.

Consequently, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and closed the file.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the Appellant's gaming supplier registration after the Appellant was caught selling wine without a licence at his convenience store.

The Appellant argued he believed he was selling cooking wine, which is exempt from licensing, and did not intend to contravene the law.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the Appellant contravened the Liquor Licence Act, he did not act surreptitiously and had a long, problem-free history as a registrant.

The Tribunal concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe the Appellant would not act with honesty and integrity going forward, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the revocation.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to review its application for an outdoor liquor licence after a neighbouring resident objected.

The neighbour raised concerns about potential noise, unruly patrons, and alleged non-compliance with municipal by-laws.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant had met all municipal and building requirements and that the neighbour's concerns about noise and unruly behaviour were speculative and not supported by objective evidence.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the outdoor liquor licence subject to conditions on operating hours.

The Appellant's request for costs was denied.

The appellant appealed a Review Order made by the Fire Marshal's Delegate regarding fire safety measures at an apartment building.

The original Inspection Order required the appellant to clean a stove and replace smoke detectors with heat detectors due to frequent false alarms caused by tenants smoking and cooking.

The Review Order modified this to only require replacing the smoke detector in one unit.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the frequent false alarms caused tenant complacency and increased the risk of tampering, posing a fire safety issue.

The Commission amended the Review Order to require the replacement of smoke detectors with heat detectors in all bedrooms on each floor of the premises.

The appellant appealed a review decision upholding an inspection order that required him to remove excessive combustible materials (hoarding) from his home.

The appellant argued the inspection violated Charter values due to alleged harassment, that hoarding is not a fire safety issue, and that he had since complied with the order.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of harassment, that hoarding poses a significant fire safety risk to occupants and first responders, and that subsequent compliance does not invalidate the original order.