Raymond Ramdayal

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an employee whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by verbally asking the driver if he had a valid licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps, such as requesting to see the physical licence or conducting an online check, which he regularly did for other employees.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence and downgrade it to a Class G(Z).

The suspension was based on an OPP investigation into a fraudulent commercial driving examination scheme.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal regarding the licence downgrade.

However, the Tribunal set aside the licence suspension, finding the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence connecting the appellant to the alleged bribery scheme or demonstrating he posed a risk to public safety.

A preliminary motion by the respondent to seal portions of the OPP investigation letters was granted.

The applicant applied for the return of her seven bulldogs, which were removed by Animal Welfare Services after being found abandoned and living in unsanitary conditions.

The applicant, who was marginally housed and experiencing financial difficulties, argued she did not abandon the dogs and could now care for them.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the conditions causing the animals' distress had ceased to exist, as she provided insufficient evidence of stable housing or improved circumstances.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision confirming the impoundment of her vehicle under s. 50.2(5) of the Highway Traffic Act.

She argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship and submitted new evidence, including a medical note and personal letters.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the new evidence would not have changed the original outcome, as the appellant had access to alternative transportation, making the ground of exceptional hardship unavailable.

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 her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had been using taxis and public transit to commute to work and fulfill her needs.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after another driver was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship, as she needed the vehicle for work, transporting her grandchildren to school, and volunteering.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives available, such as sharing her daughter's vehicle, which adequately mitigated any threat or loss.

The impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account (SOA) issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of boarding and veterinary care for 10 cats removed from her home due to unsanitary and hoarding conditions.

The appellant argued the costs were too high and some medical tests were unnecessary.

The Animal Care Review Board found the costs were reasonable, necessary, and in some cases below market value, relying on the respondent's expert veterinary evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the SOA was confirmed at $14,966.81.

The appellant appealed the removal of his dog by Animal Welfare Services following a complaint of physical abuse.

The Board reviewed video evidence showing the appellant physically abusing the dog and accepted expert veterinary evidence that the dog was in physical and psychological distress.

The Board found the removal was lawful and necessary to alleviate distress.

The Board further held that the conditions causing the removal had not ceased to exist, as returning the dog would cause additional psychological distress, and dismissed the appeal for the dog's return.

The appellant appealed the removal of 15 equids, the subsequent Keep in Care decisions, and a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services.

The Board found that the animals were in distress due to inadequate shelter, water, and food, and confirmed the removal and Keep in Care decisions.

The Board also granted a confidentiality order to protect the appellant's personal health information.

The Statement of Account was confirmed but reduced on consent to remove trailer layover costs.

The appellants appealed a Compliance Order issued by an Animal Welfare Services inspector requiring them to have their dogs and kitten examined by a veterinarian.

The inspector had observed the animals in a state of distress, including low body weight.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the Compliance Order, finding the inspector had reasonable grounds to believe the animals were in distress.

The Board also declined to order the Minister to reimburse the appellants for the veterinary costs incurred in complying with the order.

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

Because the appeal was filed late, she brought a motion for an extension of time.

At the motion hearing, the appellant confirmed she wished to withdraw her appeal.

The Tribunal closed the file.

The appellants sought a stay of a Licence Appeal Tribunal order revoking their motor vehicle dealer and salesperson registrations pending their appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for granting a stay.

While finding there was a serious issue to be tried, the Tribunal concluded the appellants did not demonstrate significant irreparable harm.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured refusing the stay, as the public interest in protection from the appellants' pattern of providing false information outweighed the financial harm the appellants would suffer.

The motion for a stay was denied.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for veterinary services and the euthanasia of her dog.

The dog was removed by an inspector after a veterinarian advised it was in critical distress.

The Board found the removal and subsequent euthanasia were justified based on the medical evidence of the dog's deteriorating state.

The Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding the costs reasonable and within the appellant's ability to pay.

The appellant appealed a Statement of Account issued by Animal Welfare Services for the costs of veterinary care and boarding of 28 dogs removed from his residence due to distress.

The Board found the veterinary costs reasonable but determined the boarding costs of $35 per day were excessive, reducing them to $25 per day.

The total Statement of Account was varied from $31,639.68 to $22,819.68.

Recognizing the appellant's financial constraints and his strong bond with one specific dog, the Board ordered that he could pay an apportioned amount of $814.99 to have that single dog returned to him.

The appellant appealed the removal of her three dogs by Animal Welfare Services and a Statement of Account for boarding and veterinary costs.

The dogs were removed due to unsanitary and hoarded living conditions that caused them distress.

The Animal Care Review Board upheld the removal, finding the conditions remained unsuitable for the dogs' return.

However, the Board varied the Statement of Account from $1,245.00 to $262.50, noting the appellant's precarious financial situation and the respondent's lack of evidence supporting the specific costs claimed.

The appellant's dog was removed by Animal Welfare Services after police arrested the appellant for allegedly abusing the dog.

The dog received emergency veterinary care and boarding, resulting in a Statement of Account for $1,402.53.

The appellant appealed the Statement of Account, arguing that the boarding fees were unreasonable because the dog should not have been removed.

The Animal Care Review Board confirmed the Statement of Account, finding that the removal was necessary to relieve the animal's distress and that the veterinary and boarding costs were reasonable and necessary.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties reached an agreement and requested a consent order imposing conditions on the appellant's registration.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to dispose of the proceeding without a hearing on consent.

The consent order was granted, subjecting the appellant's registration to various conditions including disclosure requirements and restrictions on his role.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's employee, whose licence was suspended for an alcohol-related offence, was caught driving it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had a reasonable alternative as he owned a second vehicle that allowed him to maintain his business.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship as defined by the regulation, and confirmed the 45-day impoundment.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal Review Decision upholding Inspection Orders issued by the Hamilton Fire Department following a fire at his rental property.

The property, originally a two-bedroom house, had been renovated without permits to contain nine bedrooms and two kitchens, occupied by university students.

The appellant argued the building was an individual dwelling unit exempt from certain Fire Code requirements.

The Fire Safety Commission found insufficient evidence of a single tenancy or collective decision-making to classify the property as a single dwelling unit.

The Commission concluded the property operated as a lodging house and that the ordered fire safety measures, including fire separations and a second basement exit, were necessary to ensure fire safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the Review Decision was confirmed with amended compliance dates.

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

The appellant, a single mother, had allowed a friend to drive her vehicle without knowing his licence was suspended for life due to a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate she had investigated every reasonable option to mitigate her loss, such as renting a vehicle or using taxis, and therefore did not meet the strict criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.