Rebecca Hines

The respondent Registrar sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that ordered a 30-day suspension and added terms and conditions to the appellant's liquor licence, rather than revoking it.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal erred in law by not revoking the licence under s. 3(4) of the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019, and by considering the public interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact, as the Act provides remedial flexibility to impose suspensions and conditions in the public interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a treatment plan for social work therapy.

The insurer suspended IRBs on the basis that the applicant failed to comply with section 57(2) of the Schedule by not participating in recommended psychological treatment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not comply with her obligation to receive psychological treatment, upholding the suspension of IRBs.

The Tribunal also denied the treatment plan for social work therapy, finding the costs excessive and the treatment not reasonable and necessary given the applicant's history of non-compliance and the recommendation for a psychologist rather than a social worker.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The respondent Registrar sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that substituted the revocation of the appellants' motor vehicle dealer and salesperson registrations with terms and conditions.

The Registrar argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction and made errors of fact and law by considering the quality of the regulator's investigation and finding the appellants mitigated harm.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it had jurisdiction under section 9(5) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to consider the investigation's fairness and that any factual errors in the original decision were inconsequential and would not have changed the result.

The appellants' request for costs was also dismissed.

The appellant filed a motion seeking an extension of time to appeal an administrative penalty order issued by the Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority.

The appellant missed the 15-day appeal deadline by 12 days, citing his counsel's family emergency.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test from Manuel and found no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, unexplained additional delay by counsel, and no reasonable chance of success on the merits, as the appellant admittedly sold a new home without a vendor licence.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits (ACBs), medical benefits, and cost of examination expenses.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established entitlement to ACBs in the amount of $1,446.57 per month but was not entitled to payment because she failed to prove the expenses were 'incurred' under s. 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal approved medical benefits for assistive devices and cost of examination expenses for a nutritional assessment and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The remaining claims for medical benefits, a chronic pain assessment, and an MRI were dismissed as the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden or the services were duplicative or covered by OHIP.

Interest was awarded on the approved benefits.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after her partner was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as her partner took it in the middle of the night without her permission despite explicit instructions not to drive it.

The Tribunal found the appellant credible and applied the test from Marshall, concluding the vehicle was taken without consent with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner of it.

The appeal was granted and the vehicle ordered released.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying its claim for major structural defect (MSD) warranty coverage for its underground parking garage.

The builder argued the claim was barred by previous settlement agreements.

The Tribunal found the previous agreements only applied to first and second-year warranty claims and did not release future MSD claims.

On the merits, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's structural engineers and found that the builder's failure to install continuous expansion joints throughout the structure and the use of defective concrete resulting in delamination constituted a major structural defect under the function test.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to pay the appellant $1,565,313.43 for the cost of repairs to the garage.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as a real estate brokerage and broker under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002.

The Registrar issued the notice after discovering a $341,772.81 shortfall in the brokerage's trust account.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to maintain proper trust accounts, misappropriated trust funds for personal and business expenses, and breached an immediate suspension order.

Concluding that the appellants lacked financial responsibility and could not be expected to carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed the Registrar to carry out the revocation.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded because she was driving while her licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the impoundment caused inconvenience, the appellant and her family had alternative modes of transportation, including public transit and her husband's vehicle.

As the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its liquor licence.

The Registrar alleged the appellant breached terms and conditions prohibiting a specific individual from attending the premises, failed to retrieve the liquor licence upon request, and failed to facilitate an inspection by not providing requested documents.

The Tribunal found the allegations proven, establishing reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

However, considering the appellant's health issues as a mitigating factor, the Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the revocation, ordering instead a 30-day suspension with terms and conditions.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen by her son in the middle of the night without her permission.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible, noting she had explicitly told her son not to drive the vehicle and had left the keys accessible only due to her own health issues.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of the Act and ordered its release.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of two motor vehicle salespersons and their dealership due to alleged deceptive business practices by employees, including falsifying insurance documents, misrepresenting mandatory warranties, and failing to disclose structural damage.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, revocation was not the appropriate penalty.

The Tribunal noted the appellants' 20-year unblemished history, their prompt action upon learning of the misconduct, and the unfairness of the OMVIC investigation.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the revocation and instead attached conditions to the registrations, including mandatory OMVIC certification and the hiring of a compliance manager.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed entitlement to an income replacement benefit, outstanding physiotherapy costs, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to prove his injuries, including alleged chronic pain and psychological impairments, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as an Uber driver.

All claims were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by asking her friend if he had a valid licence and viewing a picture of it on his phone, and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that viewing a photograph of a licence did not constitute due diligence and that the appellant had alternative modes of transportation, meaning the impoundment did not result in exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship because he relies on the vehicle for his employment as an Uber driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to public transportation (the TTC) for daily errands.

Under the regulations, the availability of an alternative means of transportation precludes a finding of exceptional hardship, regardless of the financial impact on the appellant's employment.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal (NOP) issued by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as motor vehicle salespersons and a motor vehicle dealer.

The Tribunal found that the individual appellants and the corporate appellant were interested persons in respect of one another.

The Tribunal determined that the appellants engaged in a pattern of deceptive business practices, including forging consumer signatures, failing to disclose accident histories, and violating all-in pricing requirements.

Finding that the appellants' past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the NOP and revoke the registrations.

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

The vehicle was impounded after a friend drove it while subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant, a single mother living in a rural area with no public transit, had no viable alternative transportation.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment posed a threat to her health and safety and would result in significant financial loss.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was directed to release the vehicle.

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

The respondent denied income replacement benefits and several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent also raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from disputing the denials due to the expiry of the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from disputing the IRB denial because the respondent's notices were clear and unequivocal, and declined to extend the limitation period.

However, the notices denying the treatment plans were found invalid, so those claims were not barred.

On the substantive issue, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, all claims for disputed benefits were dismissed.

The appellant sought reconsideration of a decision that awarded her $11,499.07 in damages for breach of warranty, arguing she was entitled to $67,969.50.

She alleged the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by disregarding her evidence and erred in law by failing to apply the Consumer Protection Act and Sale of Goods Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness and noting that the other statutes were outside its jurisdiction under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants appealed Tarion Warranty Corporation's decision to deny their claims for 34 construction defects in their new home.

While Tarion agreed the defects were covered under warranty, it denied the claims because the appellants failed to provide the builder reasonable access to the home to complete repairs during the post-conciliation repair period.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants' demands—including three-hour repair windows, criminal background checks for workers, and refusal of hotel accommodations—were unreasonable and interfered with the builder's statutory right to mitigate damages.

The appeal was dismissed and the claims were denied.