Richard Macklin

The Registrar of the Bereavement Authority of Ontario issued an immediate suspension and proposed to revoke the crematorium licence of Newcastle Funeral Home (NCFH), which operated a low-temperature alkaline hydrolysis (AH) machine.

The Registrar alleged NCFH engaged in misleading advertising, failed to disclose its use of a low-temperature machine, operated an unkempt facility, and posed a public health risk because low-temperature AH was unproven to destroy prions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that NCFH did not engage in misleading advertising or fail to disclose its process.

While the facility's condition during a June 2018 inspection violated the requirement to operate in a decent and orderly manner, NCFH had since rectified the deficiencies.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence that low-temperature AH fails to destroy prions or poses a public health risk.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to revoke the licence, concluding the 11-month suspension already served was sufficient.

The appellant, a registered real estate salesperson, appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's failure to disclose numerous criminal convictions, regulatory offences, and unpaid judgments on his renewal applications, as well as concerns regarding his financial responsibility and past conduct.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's current financial position, comprehensive history of non-compliance with the law, and repeated false statements on renewal applications justified revocation under section 10(1) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's request to maintain his registration with conditions, concluding that conditions would not sufficiently address the multi-faceted concerns and the risk of future non-disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the revocation.

The appellant appealed the Director's proposal to refuse to issue a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station licence.

The Director relied on the appellant's extensive history of past misconduct, including multiple convictions under the Highway Traffic Act and the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, as well as previous licence revocations.

The Tribunal found that the Director met the onus of establishing reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate the station in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

As the appellant called no evidence to demonstrate how he had learned from past mistakes, the appeal was dismissed and the Director was directed to carry out the proposal.

The appellants appealed the Registrar's proposals to refuse and revoke their gaming supplier registrations.

The Registrar's proposals were based on the appellants' failure to disclose criminal and provincial offence charges, including possession of unmarked cigarettes, on their registration and renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants' past conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe they would not act as suppliers in accordance with law, integrity, honesty, or the public interest.

The appeals were dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposals.

The appellant purchased a used vehicle from a registered dealer for a road trip to New Jersey.

The vehicle's engine failed during the return trip.

After the dealer refused to remedy the deficiency, the appellant sued in Small Claims Court but her claim was dismissed based on caveat emptor.

She then claimed compensation from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund, which the Board denied on the basis that it was bound by the Small Claims Court dismissal.

On appeal, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found that it was not bound by the prior judgment, as applying issue estoppel would work an injustice given the trial judge's misapprehension of the law.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding the vehicle had a deficiency material to the trade, and awarded $1,375 (USD) for the engine and muffler replacement.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' orders cancelling and refusing to renew its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate due to an unsafe operating record.

The appellant and a related company had violation rates exceeding 100% of the threshold and failed to improve despite progressive interventions.

The Tribunal found the appellant's forward-looking strategy unconvincing, noting past failures to rectify poor performance, unpaid fines, and admitted dishonesty at a previous show cause hearing.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's orders.

The Appellant, a registered gaming assistant, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his registration.

The Registrar sought revocation because the Appellant refused to be interviewed by an inspector regarding criminal charges that had been laid against him, which were later withdrawn.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant breached his duty to facilitate an investigation under section 30 of the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

However, the Tribunal determined that revocation was too harsh a penalty given the Appellant's otherwise unblemished record and ultimate compliance.

The Tribunal substituted a 10-day suspension.

The appellant commercial vehicle operator appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificates and seizing its plates.

The appellant had previously been subject to a 10-day suspension and performance conditions.

Following a fatal collision involving one of its trucks, the appellant's safety violation rate exceeded the permitted amount under the performance conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding the preventability of the collision.

Finding that the appellant failed to meet the performance conditions and had run out of second chances, the Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's cancellation and seizure order.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for permitting an underage patron to have alcohol and permitting drunkenness on the premises.

The Tribunal held that the defence of due diligence is not available for the underage drinking offence under section 30(4) of the Liquor Licence Act, confirming the $2,500 penalty.

However, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not permit drunkenness under section 45(1) of the Regulation, as staff acted with reasonable dispatch upon observing signs of intoxication, and set aside the $1,500 penalty.

The Registrar of the Board of Funeral Services brought a motion to strike the appellants' notices of appeal regarding the revocation of their funeral home licences.

At the motion, the appellants withdrew their appeals.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the licence revocations and ordered the release of $2,500 held in trust back to the appellants.

The Tribunal denied the Registrar's request for costs, finding that the appellants' failure to comply with procedural orders did not result in lost hearing time as required by Rule 14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the registration of a motor vehicle dealer and its salesperson for failing to complete a mandatory certification course as required by a prior Consent Order.

The salesperson failed the course multiple times and had not fully removed himself as a directing mind of the dealership.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed the Registrar to carry out the suspension, finding it contrary to the public interest to allow the dealership to remain open while the non-compliance and ownership issues remained unresolved.

The appellants brought a motion to vary a Consent Order that had drastically reduced the managerial involvement of their principals following an Immediate Suspension Order of their licences.

The appellants sought to allow the principals to perform clerical work, participate in management decision-making, and assist in funeral services.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, allowing limited clerical work and management decision-making in the presence of a Monitor, but dismissed the request to allow the principals to engage in services requiring a licence, such as assisting in funeral services and handling deceased persons.

The appellants also consented to pay $25,000 in outstanding costs to the Board.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The refusal was based on the Appellant's failure to disclose his recent criminal convictions, including assault causing bodily harm, impaired driving, and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order, on his application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant made false statements and serious omissions on his application, which afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

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

The appellant appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, which cancelled its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate due to a poor safety record.

The appellant did not appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence of the appellant's staggering number of convictions, unacceptable out-of-service inspections, unpaid fines, and failed facility audit.

The Tribunal confirmed the Cancellation and Seizure Order.

During a pre-hearing regarding the interim suspension and proposed revocation of a funeral home's licence, journalists from the Toronto Star brought a motion seeking access to the pre-hearing and related documents.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the release of the pleadings to the media.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion to open the pre-hearing to the public, finding that doing so would inhibit settlement discussions and delay the expedited process required for an interim suspension case.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the motor vehicle dealer and salesperson registrations of the applicants.

The applicants appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the individual applicant had misrepresented his father's identity to an inspector and admitted that his father was acting as a bookkeeper for the dealership, in direct breach of a prior Consent Order prohibiting the father's involvement.

The Tribunal concluded that the Registrar met the onus of establishing reasonable grounds for belief that the applicants would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the Applicant's real estate broker's licence based on allegations of his involvement in a stolen car 'chop shop' operation, failure to disclose criminal charges, and unauthorized use of the 'P.Eng.' designation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove the Applicant's involvement in the chop shop.

However, the Applicant admitted to failing to disclose criminal charges on his registration applications.

The Tribunal concluded that while the non-disclosure was a serious misdeed, it did not warrant revocation.

Instead, the Tribunal ordered a 90-day suspension of the Applicant's registration and imposed conditions regarding future disclosures and criminal record checks.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario imposed a $6,000 monetary penalty on the applicant licensee for allegedly permitting drunkenness and failing to ensure reasonable measures regarding disorderly conduct.

The Registrar abandoned the disorderly conduct allegation at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that while a patron was intoxicated outside the bar, there was no evidence regarding her state or interaction with staff while inside the premises.

Applying the test from 1213963 Ontario Ltd., the Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence that the licensee knew or ought to have known of the drunkenness.

The monetary penalty was set aside.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his conditional registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Applicant had failed to fully disclose his criminal record during the application process and subsequently breached conditions requiring him to provide an official criminal record check.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the Applicant breached the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, his conduct did not warrant revocation.

The Tribunal ordered that the registration be continued, subject to a 120-day suspension and additional reporting conditions.