Mary Ann Spencer

The applicant, a condominium unit owner and former board president, submitted a request for records seeking board meeting minutes.

The respondent condominium corporation initially failed to provide all requested minutes and did not use the prescribed form, though it provided the required information.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's initial inability to produce the records was due to poor record-keeping practices during the applicant's own tenure on the board.

As the respondent made reasonable efforts to locate the records and did not refuse to provide them, the Tribunal declined to order a penalty or costs against the respondent.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, requested un-redacted copies of proxy forms submitted at the respondent corporation's annual general meeting to audit the election of directors.

The respondent refused, offering only redacted copies to protect owners' personal information pursuant to the Condominium Act, 1998 and O. Reg. 48/01.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to un-redacted copies, as the legislation specifically excludes personal information on proxy forms from the records an owner may examine.

The tribunal ordered the release of the redacted records upon payment of the prescribed fee and declined to award costs.

The appellant's commercial vehicle was impounded for 45 days after it was stopped by police while being driven by the appellant's sole owner, who was a suspended driver.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the specially equipped vehicle would result in exceptional hardship to its granite installation business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as it owned another truck that could have been repaired and had managed to continue some work with the help of friends.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the impact of the loss was actually on the suspended driver, who was the sole owner of the appellant.

The appellant's snow removal vehicle was impounded for 45 days after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen and its loss would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the employee had implied consent to use the vehicle and the appellant failed to prove that operating with reduced capacity posed a threat to public safety or caused significant financial loss.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying 68 claims for alleged construction defects in their new home.

During the hearing, 16 claims were withdrawn.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the remaining claims, which included issues with insulation, drywall, flooring, bathroom finishes, roofing, and exterior masonry.

The Tribunal found that the vast majority of the claims did not constitute breaches of warranty, as the construction met the Ontario Building Code and Tarion's Construction Performance Guidelines.

However, the Tribunal found breaches of warranty regarding the master ensuite shower floor grout and the exterior foundation brushcoating.

Tarion was directed to repair the grout and pay the appellants $565 for the brushcoating defects.

All other claims were denied.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse its registration as a lottery retailer.

The Registrar's concerns related to the past conduct of the parents of the appellant's sole officer and director, who were found to be 'persons interested' in the business.

The Tribunal found that the parents exercised control over the business and that their past conduct, which included printing lottery tickets without a customer present and counselling a witness to lie to investigators, provided reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act in accordance with the law, honesty, and integrity.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of registration was confirmed.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 30 days.

The appellant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, prompting the Tribunal to issue a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the appeal for abandonment.

The appellant's new counsel subsequently advised that the failure to appear was due to a scheduling error by former counsel and requested a case conference.

With the consent of the Registrar, the Tribunal ordered that the appeal not be dismissed and directed the parties to participate in a case conference.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence for 30 days.

The appellant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, despite a previous adjournment granted due to its counsel's scheduling error.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appeal should be treated as abandoned and issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, giving the appellant 10 days to provide written submissions explaining its failure to attend.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to Revoke Registration as a gaming supplier in the class of Seller.

The Deputy Registrar alleged the appellant allowed illegal gambling on his convenience store premises using electronic tablet devices.

The Tribunal found that the appellant permitted an illegal lottery scheme to operate on his premises and failed to remove the devices after being warned by inspectors.

Concluding that the appellant's past conduct provided reason to believe he would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, honesty, or the public interest, the Tribunal confirmed the proposal to revoke his registration.

The appellant, Dellfina Homes Inc., appealed a proposal by the Registrar under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to refuse its registration as a builder.

The Registrar's refusal was based on the appellant's failure to provide a requested security deposit and the past conduct of its principal, John Custodio, which included acting as an unregistered builder and failing to enroll homes.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant could reasonably be expected to be financially responsible, the past conduct of its principal afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant would not carry on its undertakings in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant bus company appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order of its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to an unsatisfactory safety record.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant's history of non-compliance provided reason to believe it would not operate safely, its safety violation rate had improved since a previous 30-day suspension.

The Tribunal set aside the cancellation order but imposed a condition limiting the appellant's fleet to its current size of four vehicles for a period of 24 months to allow it a further opportunity to demonstrate safe operation.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying 15 claims for alleged defects in his new home.

The claims included allegations of water penetration, defective doors, missing sod, and a substitution of 2x4 framing instead of 2x6 framing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no breach of warranty for 14 of the items, noting a lack of evidence of defects or damages.

The Tribunal found a breach of warranty regarding defective caulking in the master bathroom shower and ordered Tarion to pay $75 for the repair.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its leased vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded when it was driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for life.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence because it knew the driver was suspended and loaned the vehicle on the understanding that the driver's daughter, who had a valid licence, would drive it.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the due diligence defence under s. 50.2(3)(c) requires the owner to attempt to determine that the actual driver's licence was not suspended.

Since the appellant knew the driver was suspended, it could not establish due diligence.

The appellant travel agency appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The Registrar proposed revocation based on the appellant's failure to file financial statements, improper trust account disbursements, failure to maintain and provide business records, and failure to issue proper agency invoices.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's designated manager had abdicated responsibility for the business to an employee who failed to comply with regulatory requirements and concealed correspondence from the Registrar.

The Tribunal concluded that the past conduct of the appellant's officers and directors afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The Appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the Appellant's significant outstanding judgments, a past charge of fraud over $5,000 related to depositing NSF cheques, and an alleged false statement on his application.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant lacked financial responsibility due to his unaddressed debts and that his past conduct of knowingly defrauding a bank demonstrated a lack of integrity and honesty.

Although the Tribunal found the omission on his application was an honest mistake, it concluded that registration was not appropriate and ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,000 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing for failing to clear signs of service and consumption within 45 minutes after the end of the liquor service period.

The Tribunal found the evidence of the AGCO inspectors, who observed a vodka bottle and glasses on a table at 3:01 a.m., to be more reliable than the appellant's evidence.

The Tribunal confirmed the monetary penalty, finding that the appellant breached section 29 of the Regulation.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant claimed she needed the vehicle to transport her son to dialysis appointments.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives available, as her family had two other vehicles and the impounded vehicle had never actually been used to transport her son prior to its impoundment.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after his son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence in attempting to determine his son's licence status and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to make active inquiries about the licence status despite knowing his son's history of alcoholism and previous impaired driving charges.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had other vehicles available for personal use.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it was taken without her consent by her husband, a suspended driver, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible that she had explicitly forbidden her husband from driving the vehicle and that he took it while she was sleeping.

Applying the definition of theft, the Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

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

His previous application was refused in 2013 after the Tribunal found he had committed theft against a former employer and made false statements on his application.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant's five years of incident-free employment at dealerships handling cash and expensive inventory constituted a material change in circumstances, allowing him to reapply under section 12 of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act 2002.

The Tribunal further found that his past conduct no longer afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and ordered the Registrar to register him subject to conditions.