Patricia L. Cassidy

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son drove it while his licence was suspended for Criminal Code convictions.

The appellant claimed he was unaware of his son's suspension and that the impoundment caused financial and logistical hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had workable alternative transportation arrangements and failed to prove the financial loss was immediate, significant, and lasting as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed a suspended driver to operate it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship because the appellant lived in a rural community with no public transit, could not afford a rental vehicle, and required the vehicle to transport her infant daughter, who had significant health issues, to medical care and day care.

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, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to her mother's vehicle and could get rides from friends, meaning she had a reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle.

The Tribunal confirmed the 45-day impoundment.

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

The vehicle had been driven by a suspended driver who resided with the appellant.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as she had access to public transit and her employment was not in jeopardy.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the vehicle was taken without the owner's consent, satisfying the statutory ground that the vehicle was 'stolen' for the purposes of the impoundment legislation.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming imposed a $2,500 monetary penalty on the appellant licensee for allegedly permitting an intoxicated patron on the premises.

The appellant appealed, arguing the patron was not intoxicated but rather exhibited symptoms of cerebral palsy, which the inspector misinterpreted.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's witnesses credible and concluded the patron was not drunk.

The Tribunal set aside the monetary penalty.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing he exercised due diligence in determining whether his son's driver's licence was suspended.

The appellant had been out of the country for a year and assumed his son's licence remained valid, taking no steps to verify its status.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that due diligence requires some action on the part of the owner, and assuming validity without inquiry is insufficient.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed an acquaintance to drive him home, unaware that the driver had a lifetime licence suspension for impaired driving.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to make any inquiry about the driver's licence status, and that the inconvenience of renting a vehicle for his business did not meet the threshold for exceptional hardship.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The appellant argued that the loss of the vehicle caused exceptional hardship because she relied on it to care for her elderly mother.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the impoundment caused great inconvenience, public transit was available as an alternative and there was no evidence of significant financial loss or threat to health and safety as required by the legislation.

The appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal a vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The notice of appeal was filed well outside the 15-day prescribed period.

Neither the appellant nor their representative attended the scheduled teleconference hearing.

Consequently, the tribunal could not determine the preliminary motion or the appeal on the merits, and the vehicle remained detained.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying compensation for numerous alleged construction defects and unauthorized substitutions in their new home.

The appellants claimed the builder failed to comply with the agreement of purchase and sale, particularly regarding the installation of marble tile flooring with a reduced scratch coat.

The Tribunal found that while the flooring installation was an unauthorized substitution, the appellants failed to prove any resulting damages, as expert evidence established the as-built floor was structurally sound and performing well.

The Tribunal dismissed all but one of the appellants' claims, awarding $3,500 for a window that was installed in the wrong location contrary to the contract.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming imposed a $750 monetary penalty on the appellant licensee for allegedly permitting drunkenness in its establishment, contrary to section 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the evidence fell short of establishing that the patron in question was drunk or that the appellant permitted drunkenness, noting the patron's unsteadiness was consistent with recent injuries from a snowmobile accident.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to set aside the order of monetary penalty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued an order regarding the use of recordings and transcripts of an ongoing proceeding.

The Tribunal replaced a temporary order and directed that while parties would not be restricted from accessing the recordings, they could only use them to assist in preparing their case.

The parties were expressly prohibited from publishing, broadcasting, reproducing, or disseminating the recordings or transcripts to anyone not a party to the proceeding.

The Tribunal also ordered the immediate removal of any previously uploaded or published recordings.

During an appeal regarding a new home warranty claim, the appellants requested costs for a vacated hearing date after the respondent had no witnesses available.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent's inability to schedule an expert witness was largely due to the appellants unreasonably prolonging a previous cross-examination.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith under Rule 14.5 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

During an appeal regarding a new home warranty claim, the self-represented appellants alleged for a third time that the presiding adjudicator was biased against them because she sustained the respondent's evidentiary objections.

The adjudicator invited submissions on whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no reasonable apprehension of bias, noting that adverse rulings do not constitute bias and the appellants presented no new facts.

The Tribunal awarded $1,000 in costs to the respondent, finding the appellants' repetitive bias allegations and disruptive behaviour to be unreasonable and frivolous, resulting in the loss of a full hearing day.

The appellants brought a motion seeking various procedural and substantive relief, including an investigation into missing hearing recordings, authorization to record the hearing themselves, a review of a previous order, and determinations regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and alleged bullying.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the issues of bias and bullying had already been addressed in a previous order, and that the appellants' recourse for challenging that order was to appeal.

The Tribunal also denied the request for the appellants to record the proceedings, noting that only one official record should exist.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed a friend, whose licence was suspended for impaired driving, to drive it.

The appellant claimed he needed the vehicle for work and could not afford alternatives.

The Tribunal found that public transit was a viable alternative and that the appellant, who earned $32.33 per hour and lived with his parents, failed to prove he could not afford to rent a vehicle or pay his father for rides.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim in part.

During the hearing, the appellants unexpectedly concluded their evidence early.

As the respondent's witnesses were not immediately available to proceed the following day, the Tribunal vacated the next scheduled hearing date and adjourned the matter for continuation.

During an appeal regarding a new home warranty claim, the self-represented appellants alleged that they were being bullied by the opposing counsel and the Presiding Member.

The Presiding Member invited submissions on whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Finding no objective support for the allegations and noting that the appellants did not wish to start the hearing anew, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and continued the hearing.

The Appellant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspending its Commercial Vehicle Operators' Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its plates for 10 days due to a high safety violation rate.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to take responsibility for its safety record, blaming its drivers instead, and failed to implement promised remedial measures such as a new employee manual and retaining a consultant.

The Tribunal upheld the 10-day suspension as appropriate.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their new home warranty claim.

At the outset of the hearing, the respondent and the added party brought motions to quash summonses issued for two witnesses.

The Tribunal granted the motions and quashed the summonses on the basis of undertakings from counsel that both witnesses would be produced to testify and be cross-examined at the hearing.