Mary Ann Spencer

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen by her boyfriend and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the vehicle was taken without consent, dismissing the stolen vehicle ground.

However, the Tribunal found exceptional hardship because the appellant, a single mother with significant medical issues including cancer and mental health conditions, had no reasonable alternative transportation to attend her specialist appointments.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son, a suspended driver, took control of the vehicle from his girlfriend, who had initially taken it without permission.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had put strict safeguards in place to prevent his son from accessing the vehicle and had not consented to its use.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act at the time of detention and ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it exercised due diligence to ensure the driver was properly licensed.

The company had authorized one employee to drive, but that employee, contrary to company policy, allowed a newly hired co-worker with a suspended licence to drive the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the company could not rely on the due diligence defence because it did not attempt to confirm the suspended driver's licence status before he was allowed to use the vehicle, but rather entrusted it to another employee who breached company policy.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse to renew the appellant's manufacturers' licences because the appellant underwent a share transfer without applying for a licence transfer and continued to operate.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing the share transfer was an error intended as a corporate buy-back.

The Tribunal rejected the error explanation but found that the mere failure to apply for a transfer on time was insufficient to provide reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to refuse to renew the licences.

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

The appellant, a single mother, had allowed a friend to drive her vehicle without knowing his licence was suspended for life due to a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate she had investigated every reasonable option to mitigate her loss, such as renting a vehicle or using taxis, and therefore did not meet the strict criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appellant commercial vehicle operator appealed a Suspension and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to unpaid fines and fees.

The appellant argued that severe medical issues prevented him from managing his companies and paying the debts.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the failure to pay fees was significant, it did not constitute a safety-related risk under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to set aside the suspension, subject to strict conditions requiring the appellant to pay all outstanding fees and fines within one year and make minimum monthly payments.

The appellant, a registered travel agency, appealed a decision by the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) denying six claims for compensation from the Travel Compensation Fund totalling $11,494.97.

The claims related to tickets purchased for Mexicana Airlines, which ceased operations and later declared bankruptcy.

TICO denied the claims due to insufficient documentation, specifically missing Billing and Settlement Plan (BSP) reports, to prove that the tickets were paid for and that refunds were not received.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld TICO's decision, finding that the appellant failed to provide adequate evidence that it had submitted timely refund applications to the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and that it had not received refunds or credits for the claims in question.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant facilitated the trading of an individual whose registration had been previously revoked for cause.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant allowed the unregistered individual to use his name and brokerage to conduct multiple real estate transactions, and failed to represent the best interests of his clients.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act in accordance with law, integrity, and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to revoke the appellant's registration.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after it was driven by a suspended driver.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted an extension of time to appeal.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence as she made no inquiries about the driver's licence status.

However, the Tribunal found the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the appellant lost a seasonal second job due to the lack of transportation, resulting in a significant and lasting loss of income.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by assuming the driver's licence was valid after seeing him use it as identification, and claimed exceptional hardship due to the cost of renting a replacement vehicle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to make active inquiries regarding the licence status and did not establish exceptional hardship because she had an alternative means of transportation.

The appellant, a registered real estate salesperson, appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration after he was caught on video stealing small items and money from a consumer's home during a showing.

The appellant admitted to the theft and sought psychotherapy to address underlying issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the theft was a fundamental breach of trust, the appellant's remorse, motivation to change, and lack of prior complaints indicated he could carry on business with integrity.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration, but imposed strict conditions, including a requirement that the appellant not attend any property unaccompanied for three years.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim regarding the placement of a window in their new home.

The appellants argued that the window's asymmetrical interior placement constituted a defect in workmanship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the interior spacing differential was noticeable, the window was fully functional, constructed according to the plans, and symmetrical on the exterior.

The Tribunal concluded there was no defect in workmanship and no evidence of damages, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

His previous registration was revoked in 2013 due to a persistent pattern of providing false information, failing to disclose bankruptcies, and outstanding criminal charges.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had taken some steps to address his past issues, such as making small payments towards his bankruptcy and resolving his criminal charges, these actions were taken shortly before his application and did not constitute sufficient new evidence or clearly demonstrate a material change in circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar's proposal to refuse registration was upheld.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a suspended driver.

She argued she exercised due diligence by asking the driver if he had a licence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that merely asking about the licence without asking to see it did not constitute due diligence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the appellant had access to other vehicles registered in her name.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's child's father drove it while his licence was suspended for life.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant experienced inconvenience in arranging alternative transportation for her daughter, she had access to help from family and friends, and had not missed work.

Because alternatives were available, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant nightclub appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,500 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for allegedly exceeding its licensed capacity.

Police and inspectors conducted a 'count out' and concluded the main floor was over capacity.

The Tribunal found the Registrar's count unreliable because it failed to account for VIP patrons moving between licensed areas and was significantly higher than two independent counts conducted by the appellant's staff.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove the contravention on a balance of probabilities and set aside the monetary penalty.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after it was driven by her boyfriend, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, she exercised due diligence, and the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the vehicle was not taken without consent, the appellant made no active inquiries about the driver's licence status, and there was no exceptional hardship because the appellant had rented an alternative vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son, a suspended driver, drove it without her permission.

The appellant had only authorized her son's friend, a licensed driver, to operate the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the son's unauthorized use meant the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act at the time it was detained.

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

The Appellant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate due to an extremely high safety violation rate.

The Appellant argued that a recent change in ownership to a new controlling mind justified allowing the company to continue operating.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant's safety record, which placed it among the worst 0.1% of operators in Ontario, and its association with a related person whose own CVOR had been cancelled, provided reason to believe it would not operate safely.

The Tribunal rejected the new owner's evidence of future compliance plans as unsupported and ordered the Registrar to carry out the cancellation.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by her son, a suspended driver, and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the exceptional hardship ground was unavailable because the appellant had previous vehicle impoundments.

However, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence that her son took the vehicle without her consent after she had explicitly refused him permission.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.