Patricia L. Cassidy

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

Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal heard six preliminary motions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' motions seeking a forced cash settlement, certificates of impartiality for witnesses, and the exclusion of certain expert reports.

The Tribunal partially granted the appellants' motion for document disclosure, ordering the added party to produce specific invoices and correspondence.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the respondent's motion to quash a summons issued to its President and C.E.O., finding he had no relevant evidence to provide.

The respondent brought a motion to adjourn the commencement of the hearing to September 5, 2014.

The added party consented, but the appellants opposed the motion.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and ordered the respondent to pay the appellants $500.00 in costs.

The Tribunal also ordered that witnesses subject to pending motions to quash their summonses need not attend the hearing until those motions are resolved.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant permitted her boyfriend, whose licence was suspended for life due to multiple impaired driving convictions, to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative transportation options and did not suffer economic hardship or loss of employment.

The appeal was dismissed and the 45-day impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her 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 friend was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship, as the impact of the loss would primarily affect her rather than a person ordinarily transported in the vehicle, and the vehicle was ordinarily operated by the suspended driver.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued an Order of Monetary Penalty against the applicant licensee for allegedly permitting drunkenness on its premises, contrary to section 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

A patron was found passed out in a booth and taken to the hospital.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal set aside the monetary penalty, finding that the evidence did not establish on a balance of probabilities that the patron was drunk, nor did it establish that the establishment's staff knew or ought to have known she was intoxicated before she collapsed.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse his registration as a gaming assistant.

The Registrar based the refusal on the applicant's failure to disclose past withdrawn criminal charges on his application and subsequent charges laid shortly after the application was submitted.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant credible in his explanation that he misunderstood the application question regarding withdrawn charges.

Given his positive employment record and the fact that all charges were withdrawn, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to grant the registration subject to a condition requiring the applicant to report any future charges.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The applicant had lent her vehicle to an unlicensed driver.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had managed to find alternative transportation to work, did not lose her employment, and her financial difficulties pre-dated the impoundment.

The Tribunal concluded that the grounds for exceptional hardship were not met and confirmed the impoundment.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for a deposit refund and delayed closing compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The applicants had entered into an agreement to purchase a new home and paid a $27,000 deposit, but the transaction failed to close due to a dispute over funds.

The applicants subsequently sued the vendor in Superior Court and settled the action for $60,000, signing a full and final release.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicants were not owners entitled to delayed closing compensation, did not meet the statutory requirements for a deposit refund, and were precluded from further recovery by the full and final release.