Matthew M. Létourneau

The appellant appealed two Fire Marshal Review Orders confirming Inspection Orders that required the appellant to either install a sprinkler system or reduce storage heights to 4.5 meters to comply with the Fire Code.

The appellant argued that the orders effectively required structural alterations, which is prohibited under s. 22(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 for buildings constructed prior to 1992.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the orders did not require structural repairs, as reducing storage height was a viable alternative to installing sprinklers.

The Commission also ruled that the orders remained enforceable despite the appellant corporation's recent amalgamation.

The appeals were dismissed, but the compliance date was extended.

The appellant appealed the removal of several exotic animals from her home and shed by Animal Welfare Services (AWS).

AWS inspectors and a veterinarian found the animals in distress due to unsanitary conditions, lack of enrichment, and improper housing.

The Animal Care Review Board upheld the removal of two Macaques, a Fennec Fox, two Genets, and a Capuchin, finding they were in distress and their basic and species-specific standards of care were not met.

However, the Board ordered the return of one juvenile Macaque kept inside the home, finding it was adequately cared for and not in distress.

The respondent, Tarion Warranty Corporation, requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision awarding the appellant damages for a breach of warranty regarding a front door substitution.

Tarion argued the Tribunal erred in fact and law by awarding damages that included installation and reframing costs rather than just the difference in material value between the two doors.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact.

The Tribunal confirmed that the substituted door could not be installed without structural modifications, making the installation costs a reasonable component of the damages for the breach of warranty.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding compensation for an unauthorized substitution of a front door by the builder.

The builder installed a smaller doorframe with a transom window instead of the agreed-upon wider doorframe with a side light window.

Tarion initially awarded $195.09, representing the difference in material cost.

The Tribunal found that the transom window was not an equivalent substitution and that the proper measure of damages was the cost to replace the doorframe to accommodate the originally agreed-upon side light door.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to pay the appellant $8,907.45 plus HST, based on an estimate provided by Tarion's estimator.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to impound his vehicle for driving while suspended.

The appellant requested an extension of time to file the appeal.

During the motion hearing to consider the extension, the appellant withdrew his application.

The Tribunal closed the matter.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector requested a reconsideration of a Board decision that revoked the removal of the appellant's animals and ordered their return.

The Inspector argued the Board erred in law by misinterpreting the definition of 'distress' under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act and made errors of fact and procedural fairness.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it applied the correct legal test for distress, made no significant factual errors, and conducted a fair hearing.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 90 days after he was arrested for driving while suspended.

He filed an appeal of the impoundment outside the 15-day statutory deadline and brought a motion to extend the time to file.

The appellant did not attend the motion hearing.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel criteria and found the appellant failed to justify the delay, noting that confusion over the length of the impoundment period does not alter the statutory deadline to appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector to remove and keep her animals (dogs, a cat, and a rabbit) and the associated statement of account.

The animals were removed following an investigation prompted by complaints about their living conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the animals were in distress on the day of the investigation, noting they were well-fed, hydrated, and generally in good health.

The Board revoked the decisions to remove and keep the animals, revoked the statement of account, and ordered the animals returned to the appellant.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied certain benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed to suffer from chronic pain and psychological impairments that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly soft tissue in nature and that a subsequent workplace accident was an intervening factor.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the burden of proving chronic pain caused by the motor vehicle accident, and therefore his injuries remained within the MIG.

The claims for a chronic pain assessment, treatment program, and interest were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse the renewal of its liquor licence.

The proposal was based on the appellant's failure to pay a $12,000 Order for Monetary Penalty issued in 2018 for serving underage patrons.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's failure to pay the penalty demonstrated financial irresponsibility and provided reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

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

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Tribunal found a pattern of false and misleading conduct, including failing to disclose vehicle accident histories, providing false bills of sale, and a prior conviction under the Consumer Protection Act.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not carry on business with integrity, honesty, and in accordance with the law, and directed the Registrar to carry out the revocation.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account totaling $58,672.98 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the removal and care of 77 cats found in distress in a rented van.

The appellant did not contest the facts of the removal or the distress of the animals, but argued she lacked the financial means to pay the account due to relying on ODSP and facing housing difficulties.

The Animal Care Review Board found that while the Act does not explicitly mention ability to pay, it does not bar its consideration.

Acknowledging the severe distress of the cats but also the appellant's limited income, the Board varied the Statement of Account to $1,800, payable at $150 per month for 12 months.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's order for the immediate suspension of her real estate licence pending a hearing for revocation.

The Registrar alleged serious breaches of the Code of Ethics, including a pattern of abuse and harassment towards former business partners and failure to disclose criminal charges.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established a prima facie case of conduct that poses a risk to the public.

The Tribunal ordered that the immediate suspension be extended until the conclusion of the revocation hearing, as it is in the public interest to protect the public from such conduct.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order refusing his application for a Driver and Trainer licence under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015.

The Registrar refused the application based on the appellant's lengthy and serious criminal history, arguing it provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty, integrity, or in the public interest.

The appellant presented evidence of recent honest participation in the Quebec horse racing industry and argued he had broken from his criminal past.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had made positive steps, insufficient time had passed since his last serious criminal conviction to overcome the reasonable grounds for refusal.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's proposal to refuse the licences.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an acquaintance with a suspended licence.

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship as a single mother who relies on the vehicle for work and transporting her children.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternative transportation options, such as rides from friends and taxis, and that the impoundment did not pose a threat to health or safety.

As alternatives were available, the Tribunal was prohibited from considering financial loss or inconvenience.

The appellant appealed an Inspection Order and an Order to Close issued by Toronto Fire Services regarding the third storey of a property he co-owned.

The orders required the closure of the third floor until a second exit was provided, on the basis that the property was operating as a rooming house.

The appellant argued the property was a legal duplex and that a window provided a sufficient second exit.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the upper unit was occupied as a rooming house and was subject to Section 9.3 of the Fire Code, which requires two exits.

The Commission determined the window was not an acceptable exit.

The Commission amended the Inspection Order to provide a compliance option of reverting the unit back to a single dwelling unit, and confirmed the Order to Close due to the high risk to occupants.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied his claim for Income Replacement Benefits.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to fully consider medical evidence and testimony, including reports from various doctors and Service Canada findings.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-weigh the evidence rather than identifying an error of law or fact.

The Tribunal had properly considered all evidence in its original decision.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for delayed occupancy compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants experienced multiple delays in the closing of their new home and ultimately signed an agreement with the builder granting an extension in exchange for waiving their right to delayed closing compensation.

The Tribunal found that the waiver agreement was clear, unequivocal, and negotiated with the assistance of legal counsel, with no evidence of coercion or bad faith.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed Tarion's decision and dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants had validly waived their right to compensation.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond the 104-week post-accident mark, claiming a complete inability to engage in reasonably suited employment due to physical and psychological impairments from a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the medical evidence and the applicant's employment history, determining that reasonably suited employment included light-to-medium manual labour.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in such employment, as objective medical assessments indicated he retained the physical, psychological, and cognitive capacity to perform light-to-medium work.

The application for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after her son drove it with a suspended license.

The applicant, who was undergoing cancer treatment and required regular medical appointments, argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that due to her compromised immune system and the COVID-19 pandemic, alternative transportation options like Uber, public transit, or relying on family members were not reasonable or safe.

The Tribunal ordered the return of the vehicle, concluding that the lack of safe transportation threatened the applicant's health and safety.