Patricia McQuaid

The Vintner's Quality Alliance Ontario issued a compliance order requiring the appellant vineyard to remove the term 'Prince Edward County' from its website banner.

The appellant appealed the order.

The Tribunal found that the term was used to describe the geographical location of the vineyard, which produces both wine and cider, rather than to describe a specific unapproved wine.

The Tribunal held that interpreting the regulation to prohibit a vineyard from stating its factual location would lead to absurd consequences.

The compliance order was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,000 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for allegedly permitting drunkenness on her premises.

The Registrar's inspector and police officers concluded a patron was intoxicated based on his slurred speech, unsteadiness, and loud behaviour.

However, the patron testified that his behaviour was due to physical disabilities from past accidents and his lack of a hearing aid.

The Tribunal found the patron's evidence credible and corroborated by video surveillance, concluding the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the patron was drunk.

The Order of Monetary Penalty was set aside.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act proposed to refuse the appellant's registration as a salesperson, alleging her past conduct lacked honesty and integrity due to a missing $7,000 cash payment and subsequent withdrawn criminal charges.

The Registrar also alleged the appellant provided false information on her applications regarding the pending charges and a consumer proposal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's handling of the missing funds was careless but did not demonstrate a lack of integrity.

The Tribunal also found the application errors were honest mistakes, not deliberate concealments.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to register the appellant subject to a condition requiring disclosure of any future charges.

The appellant daycare appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse to renew its licence under the Day Nurseries Act and the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014.

Over a three-year period, the daycare had a history of numerous non-compliances and operated under several provisional and conditional licences.

The Tribunal found that the cumulative impact of the ongoing failure to comply with regulatory requirements provided reasonable grounds to believe the daycare would not be operated in accordance with the law.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse to renew the licence.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to suspend his registration as a lottery retailer.

The Registrar proposed the suspension because the Appellant failed to disclose a Highway Traffic Act conviction and several Tobacco Tax Act assessments for selling unmarked cigarettes on his renewal application.

The Tribunal found that while the HTA offence did not warrant sanction, the repeated tobacco tax infractions and failure to disclose them justified a suspension.

The Tribunal substituted the Registrar's proposed 30-day suspension with an 18-day suspension and imposed a condition requiring prompt reporting of future charges or convictions.

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

The vehicle had been driven by the appellant's son's fiancée's brother, who was a suspended driver.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and the primary driver of the vehicle both had reasonable transportation alternatives.

As inconvenience does not constitute exceptional hardship under the legislation, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant applied for additional licensed capacity under the Liquor Licence Act.

Several resident objectors initially opposed the application.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant reached a private agreement with the spokesperson for the majority of the objectors, who then withdrew their objections.

The remaining objectors did not attend the hearing.

The Registrar took no position on the application.

The Tribunal approved the application for additional licensed capacity, directing the Registrar to issue the licence subject to usual requirements, noting that the private agreement terms would not be conditions on the licence.

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after its employee was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by repeatedly asking the employee for his licence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to its business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that allowing the employee to drive for months without ever seeing a valid licence did not constitute due diligence.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant's financial difficulties predated the impoundment and that the loss of the vehicle amounted to inconvenience rather than exceptional hardship as defined by the legislation.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a Consent Order without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the Consent Order, imposing terms and conditions on the appellant's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson for a period of two years, including requirements to disclose pending charges and provide transcripts of a guilty plea to his sponsoring dealer.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a Consent Order without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the Consent Order, allowing the Appellant's registration subject to strict conditions, including restrictions on his employment capacity, prohibitions on acting as a manager or using nominees, and enhanced disclosure and compliance obligations.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a written settlement and applied for a consent order without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, concluding the proceedings on the terms set out in the settlement.

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

The appellant, whose licence was suspended, was caught driving his children to a dental appointment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's family had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as his spouse owned a van and public transit was available.

The Tribunal concluded that the financial cost of the impoundment did not meet the regulatory criteria for exceptional hardship and confirmed the 45-day impoundment.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of Directors of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) denying her claim for $5,600 from the Travel Compensation Fund.

The appellant had paid for airline tickets through a travel agent but never received them due to a fraudulent scheme by the agent's employee.

TICO denied the claim on the basis of insufficient documentation and that payment was made to a third party rather than the registered travel agent.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the lack of documentation was due to the fraud itself and that the third party was actually a named partner of the travel agency.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered TICO to reimburse the appellant $5,600.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration issued by the Registrar under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to issue invoices and properly maintain a trust account.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the appeal without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, which required the appellant to correct trust accounting deficiencies, submit monthly trust reconciliations, and maintain minimum working capital.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to revoke his real estate broker registration based on a past criminal conviction for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and an alleged failure to disclose a conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample.

The Tribunal found that the non-disclosure was not deliberate, as the breath sample conviction had been overturned on appeal.

Regarding the drug conviction, the Tribunal considered the appellant's significant rehabilitation, his compliance with registration conditions over nine years, and strong character evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal.

The appellant travel agency appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to file financial statements.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, which required the appellant to comply with trust account, education, and financial reporting requirements.

The appellant travel agent appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration issued by the Registrar under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to file financial statements and follow proper trust accounting procedures.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, incorporating the Minutes of Settlement which required the appellant to maintain proper trust accounts, submit monthly reconciliations, file annual financial statements, and maintain minimum working capital.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a consent order without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, incorporating the settlement terms which included suspension of registrations pending repayment to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund, completion of an automotive certification course, and employment of a designated person-in-charge.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse registration of a motor vehicle dealer and to revoke registrations as motor vehicle salespersons.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, which refused the dealer registration for Babs Enterprise but allowed Babatunde Ajayi and Ronke Ajayi to be registered as salespersons subject to strict conditions, including employment by an approved sponsoring dealer, restrictions on signing contracts, and mandatory education.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to review its application for a liquor licence for a cafe and ice cream shop.

Local residents objected to the application, primarily citing concerns about potential noise from the patio and interior at night.

The Tribunal found that the objectors' subjective concerns were not supported on a valid objective basis and that they failed to establish that granting the licence was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to conditions regarding signage and a contact number for complaints.