Patricia McQuaid

The appellant appealed Tarion's decision to disallow her claim for a deposit refund out of the guarantee fund under s. 14(1) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant had previously litigated the return of her deposit against the vendor in the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal, both of which found that she, not the vendor, had breached the agreement of purchase and sale.

The Tribunal held that it was bound by the courts' findings and that the appellant could not relitigate the issue.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied the cost of examinations for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by failing to consider initial submissions and made an error of law regarding causation.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal had considered all submissions and applied the correct legal test in determining that the assessment was not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant, a condominium owner, submitted a records request to the respondent condominium corporation for various invoices.

The respondent initially agreed to provide some records but later refused, arguing the request was not solely related to the applicant's interest as an owner due to ongoing board governance disputes.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the records, as her interest as an owner was not diminished by the parallel disputes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the records subject to a reasonable fee of $30 per hour for labour and 20 cents per page.

Requests for a penalty and costs from both parties were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied treatment plans for chiropractic services and post-concussive therapy.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by failing to properly weigh the medical evidence, specifically the reports of an optometrist and a psychologist.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding that the original decision correctly weighed the evidence and that the applicant was improperly attempting to re-argue her case.

No error of law or fact was established.

The appellant appealed Statements of Account totaling $60,625.13 issued by Animal Welfare Services for the care and boarding of 40 animals removed from her property.

The animals were removed under the OSPCA Act after inspectors and a veterinarian determined they were in distress due to inadequate shelter, bedding, and nutrition.

The appellant argued the animals were not in distress and that she had arranged to relinquish them to a new owner on the day of removal.

The Animal Care Review Board found the removal was appropriate for all animals except one duck, as the evidence established the animals lacked adequate shelter and were in distress.

The Board confirmed the Statements of Account as reasonable, ordering the appellant to pay the total amount less any costs associated with the duck.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits for home modifications and assistive devices.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to $8,960.22 for assistive devices, including a wheelchair and a specialized mattress, as they were reasonable and necessary to improve her independence and manage pain.

However, claims for a housing assessment balance and architectural drawings were dismissed, as the insurer had already paid the maximum allowable for the assessment, and the drawings were premature without an approved home modification plan.

The claim for an award under O. Reg. 664 was also dismissed.

The Kitchener Fire Department appealed a Fire Marshal Review Order that rescinded an Inspection Order against the respondent homeowners.

The homeowners rented out eight bedrooms in their single detached dwelling to students.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the property functioned as a boarding, lodging, and rooming house under section 9.3 of the Fire Code, rather than a single family dwelling, based on factors such as individual rent payments and locks on bedroom doors.

Because the basement had only a single means of egress, the Commission amended the Inspection Order to require the removal of the two basement bedrooms for fire safety reasons.

The applicant fire department applied for an order under s. 33(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act to authorize it to carry out work required by an Inspection Order issued to the respondent, who had accumulated a large amount of combustible materials in her home.

The respondent's son indicated a plan to clear the materials, but progress was delayed by the COVID-19 Emergency Order.

The Fire Safety Commission found that there was a bona fide intention to comply and granted an extension of time, ordering that if the respondent failed to comply within 30 days of the lifting of emergency restrictions or by July 2, 2020, the applicant would be authorized to enter and complete the work at the respondent's expense.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical benefits and the cost of assessments from her insurer under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that one treatment plan for chiropractic, massage, acupuncture, and physiotherapy was reasonable and necessary, awarding $4,282.62 plus interest.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining claims, including a $26,400 catastrophic impairment assessment, finding that the applicant's ongoing cervical spine issues were likely due to a progressive degenerative condition rather than the accident.

Claims for vocational and physiatry assessments were also dismissed as the applicant's condition was well-documented and she had successfully retrained and obtained employment.

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

A written hearing was scheduled, and the Tribunal ordered the parties to exchange documents and file written submissions.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or provide an explanation for the delay.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to benefits, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The respondent's request for $8,000 in costs was denied, as the applicant's failure to comply with the order did not amount to unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious conduct warranting a costs award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits from the respondent insurer.

The respondent initially denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline, but later conceded this issue.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the disputed treatment plans for massage, chiropractic therapy, and physiotherapy were reasonable and necessary to treat the applicant's ongoing soft tissue injuries.

However, the Tribunal denied the claims for a functional abilities evaluation and two disability certificates, finding they were not reasonable or necessary and provided no new information.

The applicant was awarded the treatment costs and interest on overdue payments.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it was stolen by her daughter at the time it was detained.

The daughter, whose licence was suspended, took the keys from the appellant's purse without permission.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was taken without consent and that the daughter intended to deprive the owner of it temporarily.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment and ordered its release.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to medical benefits for chiropractic services, optometric services, and post-concussive therapy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that the chiropractic and post-concussive treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also found that the optometric expenses were incurred prior to the submission of a treatment plan and were related to pre-existing cataracts rather than an impairment sustained in the accident.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought the cost of a psychological assessment from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and questioning the reasonableness of the fee.

The Tribunal found the assessment was reasonable and necessary, noting subsequent medical evidence supported the need for psychological intervention.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the $2,200 cost of the examination with interest, but declined to order a special award for unreasonable delay.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse her registration as a Category 2 gaming assistant under the Gaming Control Act.

The Registrar refused registration due to the appellant's failure to disclose her extensive criminal record on her application and concerns about her past conduct, which included multiple convictions and breaches of court orders over 25 years.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar met its burden of proving there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, honesty, or the public interest.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of registration was confirmed.

The appellant sought an extension of time to file an appeal of a Notice of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence.

The Registrar had granted multiple extensions over several months, but the appellant repeatedly failed to meet the deadlines.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found no bona fide intention to appeal, an excessive delay of 5.5 months, prejudice to the Registrar, and a lack of demonstrated merit to the appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to reopen a case after failing to participate in the Tribunal proceedings.

The corporation argued its property manager failed to notify the Board of the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it unreasonable for the corporation to rely on its property manager while expecting the unit owner to question the manager's performance.

The Tribunal also found no unfairness in refusing to reopen the case, as the disputed settlement agreement record was not protected by litigation privilege.

The unit owner's request for costs was denied.

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

The Registrar alleged the appellant was operating an illegal cannabis dispensary, contrary to s. 6(2)(d) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had ceased operating its licensed business and rented the premises to an unauthorized cannabis retailer, failing to inform the Registrar or surrender its licence as required by s. 56 of Regulation 719/90.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the renewal.

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

She argued that the vehicle was stolen because she had lent it to her brother, not her cousin, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the vehicle was not stolen within the meaning of the Highway Traffic Act, as there was no intent to deprive the owner of the vehicle.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as she had access to reasonable transportation alternatives despite the inconvenience and expense.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision upholding an Inspection Order that required a second and separate exit for five bachelor apartments in its building.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the open hall and stairway area constituted a single exit, and residents of the bachelor units had to enter this space to access the fire escape.

As there was no direct access to a second exit, the Commission confirmed the order, finding a clear fire safety issue, and extended the compliance date.