Patricia McQuaid

The applicant, a unit owner, sought to withdraw his case against the condominium corporation regarding the enforcement of parking rules.

The respondent opposed a withdrawal without costs, arguing it had incurred significant expenses and that the applicant was engaging in a pattern of disruptive litigation.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal without costs, finding that the applicant's request was reasonable in light of a recent Tribunal decision in a related matter and that he had not behaved vexatiously or unduly delayed the proceedings.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the funeral director and establishment licences of the appellants based on the principal's criminal conviction for theft from a charitable organization.

The appellants appealed the proposal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the criminal conduct was serious, it was out of character, did not involve the misappropriation of business trust funds, and the principal had an otherwise unblemished record in the industry.

The Tribunal concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not carry on business with honesty and integrity in the future.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal, but imposed conditions requiring the principal to immediately notify the Registrar of any future charges.

The applicant, a licensed establishment operating as a restaurant, applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited amplified music or sound from emanating from within the premises or on the café.

The condition was originally imposed in 2005 due to objections from nearby residents when the establishment operated as a sports bar.

The applicant argued that it had pivoted to an upscale Greek restaurant due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that music was integral to the dining experience.

The Registrar took no position.

After the applicant attempted to contact the original objectors with minimal response, the Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of the condition.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after her cat was removed by Animal Welfare Services due to severe distress.

The appellant did not dispute the removal but argued she could not afford the $2,825.07 bill due to financial hardship.

The Animal Care Review Board found the veterinary costs and initial intensive boarding costs reasonable.

However, the Board found it unreasonable for the respondent to continue incurring standard boarding costs after the cat was no longer in distress, especially while refusing to offer a payment plan to the appellant.

The Statement of Account was varied to $2,300.07.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal an Office of the Fire Marshal decision confirming an inspection order.

The order required the removal of combustible accumulations from a building the appellant claimed was vacant and secured, though evidence showed it was occupied by a trespasser.

The Fire Safety Commission dismissed the motion, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate apparent grounds for the appeal because an owner is responsible for Fire Code compliance regardless of whether an occupant is legally entitled to be there.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant unit owner's case under Rules 17.1(a) and (c) of the Condominium Authority Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The applicant alleged the corporation failed to enforce its rules against the board president, whose vehicle was leaking oil in a parking spot.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the reasonableness of the corporation's enforcement actions was a central issue, not a minor one, and that an improper purpose was not established at this preliminary stage.

The Tribunal set guidelines to keep the proceeding focused on the relevant parking enforcement issues.

The appellant appealed the removal of seven horses from her property by Animal Welfare Services and disputed the associated statements of account.

The horses were removed after the appellant failed to comply with multiple compliance orders regarding inadequate shelter, hoof care, and veterinary treatment for horses suffering from heaves and Cushing's disease.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the horses were in ongoing distress and that the removal was warranted and conducted properly under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, 2019.

The appeal was dismissed, the removal order was upheld, and the statements of account were confirmed.

The applicant, a condominium owner, requested the record of owners and mortgagees to run for a board position.

The respondent condominium corporation refused, alleging the applicant intended to use the list to harass board members and owners, and thus the request was not solely related to her interests as an owner.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent failed to prove the applicant was disentitled to the record, as her stated intention to run for the board was related to her interests as an owner.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the record and pay $200 in costs, but declined to award a penalty against the respondent.

The applicant condominium owner submitted a records request to the respondent condominium corporation seeking various email communications and authorizations related to a new online communication platform.

The respondent provided an email communications log and a management contract, but failed to use the prescribed form.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the requested records had been provided and that the failure to use the prescribed form did not constitute a refusal without reasonable excuse.

No penalty was ordered, but the respondent was ordered to pay $200 in costs for Tribunal fees.

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was taken without her consent by her former boyfriend following an argument.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was taken without consent with the intention to deprive the owner of it, meeting the definition of 'stolen' under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant, a registered motor vehicle dealer, brought a motion for a stay of the Tribunal's Order revoking his registration pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that the appeal raised a serious issue and that the appellant would suffer irreparable harm, as the loss of his sole source of income would likely result in the permanent closure of his dealership.

The Tribunal concluded that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay, provided strict conditions were imposed to protect the public interest.

The stay was granted for seven months, subject to conditions including that the appellant operate as a wholesaler only and expeditiously perfect the appeal.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the appellant's registration as a real estate salesperson due to past conduct, false statements, and financial irresponsibility.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration, but permitted the appellant to apply for reinstatement after May 28, 2022, subject to completing specified educational courses.

The appellant brought a motion seeking particulars, further disclosure, and costs.

Prior to the motion hearing, the respondent provided the requested disclosure, leaving only the issue of costs to be decided.

The appellant sought costs of $2,000 under Rule 19 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, arguing the respondent's delay in providing disclosure was unreasonable.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for costs, finding that the delay was reasonably explained by pandemic-related remote work challenges, did not prejudice the appellant's ability to have a fair hearing, and did not amount to vexatious or bad faith conduct.

The applicant condominium owner submitted a records request to the respondent condominium corporation.

The corporation provided the requested records, including the declaration, rules, periodic information certificates, and board meeting minutes.

The applicant challenged the adequacy of the records, arguing the declaration lacked mediation provisions, the rules were unsigned, and the minutes lacked detail.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the records provided were adequate and in accordance with the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal declined to award a penalty or costs to either party.

The appellant, a registered real estate broker, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke her registration and an Immediate Suspension Order issued by the Registrar.

The Registrar alleged the appellant took advantage of a vulnerable client for personal gain.

The appellant requested the suspension be lifted pending the hearing and sought a sealing order due to allegations of sexual harassment by the client.

The Tribunal found the Registrar established a prima facie case but failed to prove the public interest required the suspension to continue, as there was no evidence of a pattern of conduct or risk to other consumers.

The Tribunal also denied the sealing order, finding the allegations did not outweigh the open court principle.

The Immediate Suspension Order was set aside.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his vehicle, arguing his driver's licence was not under suspension at the time because he had been granted a Stay of Driving Prohibition Order pending the appeal of his Criminal Code conviction.

The Registrar argued the Ministry of Transportation records still showed the licence as suspended.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar had notice of the appeal and the Stay Order from a previous proceeding, meaning the suspension was stayed under section 55 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle and the reimbursement of the appellant's impoundment fees.

The appellant appealed the 15-day impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle under section 50.3 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle did not have a critical defect at the time of inspection.

The provincial offences officer found that four of the six brakes on the trailer were inoperative.

Although a mechanic later found the brakes to be working, the Tribunal held that the relevant time for determining a critical defect is the time of the inspection.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that there was no critical defect at the time of the inspection and confirmed the impoundment.

The applicant unit owner brought a dispute to the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking the removal of a portable basketball net placed by a neighbouring owner on her exclusive use driveway.

The applicant argued the net violated the condominium's declaration and rules regarding the use of driveways for motor vehicle parking.

The Tribunal found that the placement of the basketball net did not violate the governing documents within its jurisdiction over parking and storage, and dismissed the request for enforcement.

The applicant was awarded $200 in costs.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty imposing two penalties: $10,000 for permitting disorderly conduct and $15,000 for failing to facilitate an inspection.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's principal was aggressive and uncooperative during an after-hours inspection, failing to facilitate it in violation of s. 45(2) of the Liquor Licence Act.

However, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the licensee permitted the disorderly conduct of patrons under s. 45(1) of the Regulation.

The $15,000 penalty was confirmed, and the $10,000 penalty was set aside.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, submitted a request for records including by-laws, rules, and board meeting minutes relating to visitor parking disputes.

The respondent condominium corporation provided some records but claimed no meeting minutes existed regarding the specific parking issues.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide a reasonable excuse for not producing the requested minutes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide board meeting minutes for the 12 months preceding the request, and awarded the applicant a $250 penalty and $200 in costs.