Mary Ann Spencer

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an unlicenced and suspended driver.

The applicant argued that his daughter, who had exclusive use of the vehicle, relied on it for work and transporting her children.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant owned another vehicle and his daughter was able to use public transportation, meaning an alternative to the impounded vehicle existed.

As such, exceptional hardship was not established.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The applicant's partner, who has severe physical and mental disabilities, relies on the applicant to drive him to numerous medical appointments.

The Tribunal found that there was no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle and that the loss of the vehicle presented a threat to the partner's health and safety.

The appeal was allowed on the ground of exceptional hardship, and the Registrar was ordered to release the motor vehicle.

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

The Registrar's refusal was based on the Applicant's failure to disclose prior criminal convictions for theft of electricity and production of a controlled substance related to a marijuana grow operation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant provided false and misleading information on his application and subsequent correspondence.

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

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

The applicant sought a liquor sales licence for indoor and outdoor areas of a proposed restaurant.

Local residents objected to the proposed patio on The Esplanade, citing concerns about noise, panhandling, and traffic congestion.

The Tribunal found the objectors' concerns to be speculative and not supported by objective evidence.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application subject to conditions, including a prohibition on music on the outdoor patios and a requirement to provide a contact number for resident complaints.

The applicant applied for an additional licensed area (a patio) under the Liquor Licence Act.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving written objections.

At the hearing, the parties presented a settlement agreement containing conditions for the patio, including closing times, noise restrictions, and physical setbacks.

The Tribunal accepted the agreement as resolving the public interest objections and approved the application subject to the agreed conditions.

The Applicant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its plates due to an unacceptable safety record.

Despite a previous facility audit, a seven-day suspension, and a safety management plan, the Applicant's safety violation rate remained among the worst 0.4% of carriers in Ontario.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found reason to believe the Applicant would not operate safely and concluded that a further suspension would be ineffective.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the cancellation and seizure order.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal from the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to review an application for additional licensed areas due to community objections.

At the hearing, the applicant, the City of Toronto, and the objectors reached a settlement agreement on conditions to attach to the liquor licence.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to the agreed-upon conditions, which included capacity limits, noise restrictions, and operational requirements.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its tow truck under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an employee whose licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had an alternative to the impounded vehicle, namely contracting out towing services, and failed to provide documentation supporting a significant or lasting financial loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The applicant argued that he exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that his driver's licence was not suspended, and that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had valid reasons for believing his licence was current, having contacted both his counsel and the Ministry of Transportation to clarify his status after receiving conflicting information.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant exercised due diligence and ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his 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 applicant's son loaned it to a friend whose driver's licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had alternative transportation options, including the use of his wife's vehicle and public transit.

As the applicant failed to demonstrate that no alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, the exceptional hardship criteria were not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship and that the vehicle was taken without her permission.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had reasonable alternatives to the vehicle, so exceptional hardship was not established.

However, the Tribunal found that the suspended driver took the vehicle without the applicant's permission, temporarily depriving her of it, which met the definition of 'stolen' under the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The Applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claims regarding a new home purchased from the Added Party.

The claims involved noise transmission through a party wall, squeaky stairs, and mould stains in the basement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the party wall met the Ontario Building Code's sound transmission standards, there was no evidence of a defect in the stairs, and the mould stains did not constitute a warrantable defect.

The Tribunal also dismissed the Applicant's claims for secondary damages and human rights violations, noting that secondary damages are excluded under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and there was no evidence of discrimination.

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

She sought an extension of time to appeal, which the Tribunal granted.

On the merits, the applicant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she is a single mother who relies on the vehicle for personal use and medical appointments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had reasonable alternatives, such as public transportation, and therefore failed to establish exceptional hardship under the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The Registrar proposed refusal based on the Applicant's recent criminal convictions for violent offences, his current probationary status, and false statements made in his application regarding the circumstances of his convictions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant provided false and misleading information to the Registrar and failed to fully disclose the details of his convictions.

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The Applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim on the basis that the Added Party, Olympia Ventures, was not a 'builder' under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Applicants argued they hired the Added Party to build their custom home.

The Tribunal found that the Applicants retained control over the construction, directly hired and paid the architect, tradespersons, and site supervisor, and acted as their own general contractor.

The Added Party acted only as a project manager and consultant.

As there was no 'builder' within the meaning of the Act, the Applicants were not entitled to warranty coverage, and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to refuse to issue a Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and to seize its permits and plates.

The Registrar refused the application on the basis that the applicant was related to another trucking company whose CVOR certificate had been cancelled due to a poor safety record and outstanding fines.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's principals were previously 50% owners and managers of the cancelled company, establishing that the two corporations were related under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was created to continue the cancelled company's operations while avoiding its debts and safety record.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to refuse the CVOR certificate and carry out the seizure order.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen by the suspended driver and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to substantiate the claim that the vehicle was stolen, as no police report was made.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as Ministry records indicated the applicant owned a second vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The Applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims for several alleged defects in their new home, which had suffered fire damage prior to possession.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed claims regarding a wood frame sill plate overhang, smoke stains, missing anchor bolts, a brick overhang, and malfunctioning garage doors.

The Tribunal found that the sill plate overhang and the brick overhang violated the Ontario Building Code and constituted warranted defects, ordering Tarion to pay $1,020.00 for their repair.

The remaining claims, including a request for reimbursement of engineering fees, were dismissed for lack of evidence or lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's son drove it while his licence was suspended.

The applicant claimed he needed the vehicle for his scrap metal business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had mitigated his income loss by finding temporary work and therefore had an alternative to the vehicle, failing to meet the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to revoke the applicant's liquor licence following a serious stabbing incident on the premises.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant breached licence conditions regarding security cameras and a compliance plan, and failed to maintain control over the premises.

However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant permitted the violent conduct, as he attempted to intervene.

The Tribunal concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe the applicant would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and requested submissions on the appropriate sanction for the established breaches.