Michael Beauchesne

The appellant sought compensation from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund after a dealer failed to pay out his original vehicle loan upon refinancing, leaving him with two loans for the same vehicle.

The Board of Trustees denied the claim on the basis that the refinancing transaction did not constitute a 'trade' under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the transaction was merely a transfer of a loan to obtain a better interest rate, not a trade involving the buying, selling, leasing, or exchanging of an interest in a motor vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle had been stolen by the driver at the time of the impoundment.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Proceeding in his absence, the Tribunal found the appellant provided no evidence to support his claim that the vehicle was taken without consent or that the driver intended to deprive him of it.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the driver was caught operating it while subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as he merely assumed the driver was properly licensed without taking reasonable steps to verify his status.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to his spouse's vehicle as an alternative.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying multiple claim items under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act regarding their new home.

The appellants alleged various defects in workmanship and materials, including flooring, painting, drywall, a damaged garage door, and ventilation issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide objective evidence of industry standards for most claims, relying instead on personal dissatisfaction.

However, the Tribunal found that the painted surface of an arched transom (claim item 10) and a damaged garage door panel (claim item 12) constituted breaches of warranty.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to perform or arrange for the repair of these two items, while dismissing the remaining claims.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act for alleged defects in their new condominium unit.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the window screens were common elements that could only be appealed by the condominium corporation, the stacked washer and dryer provided by the builder complied with the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and the allegedly missing countertop was not included in the original layout specifications.

The appellants were not entitled to compensation from the guarantee fund.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying multiple claim items under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act regarding their new condominium unit.

The Tribunal reviewed 25 disputed claim items relating to workmanship, materials, and fitness for habitation.

The Tribunal found that only two items—a shower wall where tiles were not flush (claim item 34) and an unlevel dishwasher installation (claim item 41)—constituted breaches of warranty.

The remaining claims were dismissed for failing to meet the burden of proof, falling outside the statutory warranty, or not constituting defects under the Construction Performance Guidelines.

The appellants were awarded $2,663.31 from the guarantee fund.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized when her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she relied on assumptions rather than verifying her son's licence status.

The Tribunal also found the impoundment would not cause exceptional hardship, as the appellant failed to demonstrate that she had explored all reasonable transportation alternatives, including assistance from other family members or renting a vehicle.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and several treatment plans.

The respondent denied the benefits and argued the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding due to non-attendance at insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not statute-barred because the notices of examination were non-compliant and she had a reasonable explanation for non-attendance.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the merits.

The applicant failed to prove she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 or 8, largely due to significant pre-existing physical and psychological conditions.

Consequently, she was not entitled to medical or attendant care benefits beyond the 260-week limit, nor did she prove entitlement to post-104-week income replacement benefits or the disputed treatment plans.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological evidence was unpersuasive as it contradicted the clinical notes of his family doctor, and that his physical injuries were soft tissue in nature, resolving within expected timeframes.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and remained within the MIG.

All claims for benefits, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding a claim for air leakage in their new home.

While Tarion had already paid $20,641.08 based on a localized repair estimate, the appellants argued the scope of work was insufficient to resolve the defect across the entire rear elevation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the warranty breach extended beyond the localized area to include the entire length of the master bedroom rim joist and the area above the great room window.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to perform or arrange the necessary remedial work for this expanded scope, with liability limited to costs exceeding the amount already paid.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded because the appellant was driving while his licence was subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as he was able to walk to local amenities and afford taxi fares to work.

Consequently, 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 another driver was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

At the outset of the hearing, the parties reached a mutual understanding and the appellant withdrew his appeal.

The Tribunal closed the file.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after another driver was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the vehicle was stolen, as police did not pursue theft charges.

The Tribunal also found the appellant failed to prove there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, noting inconsistencies in her testimony regarding public transit and ride-share options.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its commercial plates and permits.

The Registrar based the order on the appellant's chronically poor safety record, which included an overall violation rate exceeding 98 percent and multiple collisions involving careless driving.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe it would not operate safely, noting that previous interventions and a prior suspension had failed to correct the non-compliance.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's request for a fleet reduction order as an alternative and directed the Registrar to carry out the revocation order in full.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that she had no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she had not made reasonable inquiries into other transportation options such as taxis, Uber, or assistance from family members.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an OCF-18 for occupational therapy (involving airfare for family) and attendant care benefits (ACB).

The Tribunal found the respondent's denial notice for the OCF-18 was defective under s. 38(8) of the Schedule as it failed to provide sufficient medical reasons, ordering the respondent to pay the OCF-18 with interest.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for increased ACB, finding the respondent properly relied on a prior Insurer's Examination and the applicant failed to prove the increased ACB was reasonable and necessary.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged that the individual appellant, as the sole director of the corporate appellant, obstructed an inspection by failing to produce required documents for nearly a year, claiming they were stolen by former business partners.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide reasonably necessary assistance during the inspection and deliberately withheld information from the inspector.

Concluding that the appellant's past conduct 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 directed the Registrar to carry out the revocation order in full.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying compensation for several claim items under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant alleged various construction defects, including shaking and squeaking floors, separated caulking, and spongy shower bases.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet his onus of proving the claim items constituted breaches of warranty, as he relied primarily on his own observations and opinions rather than objective industry standards such as the Construction Performance Guidelines or the Ontario Building Code.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal directed Tarion not to pay any amount from the guarantee fund.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act for numerous alleged construction defects in their new home.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to award damages for pain and suffering.

For three claim items where Tarion agreed defects existed, the Tribunal found the appellants had unreasonably denied the builder access to make repairs, disentitling them to compensation.

For the remaining claim items, the Tribunal found the appellants failed to meet their onus of proving defects in workmanship or materials, often failing to provide objective evidence of industry standards.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and payment for a treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a weekly IRB of $45.62 for the first 104 weeks and $185.00 thereafter, rejecting the applicant's calculation that conflated tax years and the respondent's attempt to deduct rental income.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay the balance of a form completion fee for an OCF-18.

Finally, the Tribunal granted an award of 25% of the total IRB payable under section 10 of Regulation 664, finding the respondent unreasonably delayed and withheld benefits despite having the necessary financial information.