Rupinder Hans

The appellant dealership sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of a vehicle it had sold to a driver whose licence was suspended.

The appeal was filed 13 days after the 15-day deadline.

Applying the four-factor test for extending time, the Tribunal found the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, as it only learned of the impoundment after the deadline expired.

Furthermore, the appeal lacked merit because the appellant owned 75 other vehicles, failing the exceptional hardship requirement that no alternative vehicle be available.

The motion to extend time was denied and the appeal dismissed.

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order to allow her to share two previous CFSRB decisions with the Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario for the purpose of an active review.

The respondent took no position on the request.

The adjudicator granted the request, finding that the Ombudsman required the decisions to determine if the issues had already been resolved, and ordered that the decisions be shared solely for the Ombudsman's investigation with no further dissemination permitted.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the respondent Children's Aid Society's decision to remove a 32-month-old child from her care following a domestic dispute between the applicant and her former partner.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the respondent failed to provide the statutorily required notice of removal and improperly removed the child without a local director's opinion of risk.

The Board rejected the respondent's argument that it lacked jurisdiction to order the child returned to a closed Outside Paid Resource foster home.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the Board concluded that the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs, as well as the importance of continuity of care and the child's strong attachment to the applicant, favoured returning the child to the applicant's care.

The removal decision was rescinded.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons after receiving two unsolicited Medical Condition Reports indicating a substance use disorder involving cocaine.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal noted the appellant had not abstained from cocaine for the required 12-month period nor completed a rehabilitation program.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class G driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically cognitive impairment.

The suspension was based on an unsolicited Medical Condition Report from the appellant's treating neurologist, who diagnosed mild cognitive impairment and recommended an on-road functional driving assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a cognitive impairment that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Applying the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal confirmed the suspension until the appellant completes the recommended functional driving assessment.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for water leakage in the unfinished basement of his new home.

The appellant alleged that foundation cracks were improperly repaired from the interior and that an exterior repair was required.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that water testing conducted by both Tarion and a third-party contractor confirmed the interior polyurethane resin injections successfully sealed the cracks with no water penetration.

The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to prove a breach of warranty.

The respondent requested a waiver of the CFSRB's confidentiality order to use documents from a closed CFSRB file in responding to two complaints before the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (OCSWSSW).

The applicant opposed the request.

The CFSRB granted the request, finding that the OCSWSSW needed to review the materials to determine if the complaints were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The variance was limited to specific documents, with the names of any children redacted.

The respondent child and family services agency sought a variance of the CFSRB's confidentiality rules to permit the use of specific documents from an active CFSRB proceeding in responding to two complaints before the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (OCSWSSW).

The applicant opposed the request.

The CFSRB granted the request, finding that the OCSWSSW required the documents to determine whether the complaints before it were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The variance was limited to specific pleadings and reports, with an order that the names of any children be redacted.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing her driver's licence was not suspended at the time.

The appellant had previously been convicted of impaired driving in Ontario but completed remedial requirements in Quebec, where she resided.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's Ontario driving privileges remained suspended because she had not notified the Ministry of Transportation of her completion of the Quebec program.

The Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, noting that under section 36 of the Act, a person whose Ontario driving privileges are suspended cannot drive in Ontario using a licence from another jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which occurred after another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative transportation was available, as she had successfully utilized public transit, taxis, walking, and rides from family members to meet her household's needs.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she took no steps to verify her son's licence status before permitting him to drive.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to rental vehicles to meet her daily needs and medical appointments.

The appellant brought a motion for the production of 'as-built' drawings related to an ongoing air leak issue in her home, appealing a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation to deny her claim under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The respondent provided the requested drawings after the motion was filed.

As the documents had already been provided and the appellant did not file reply submissions indicating any missing documents, the Tribunal found the motion moot and dismissed the request for a production order.

The applicant requested that the Child and Family Services Review Board waive a confidentiality order from a previous decision to allow him to use the decision in a family court proceeding and share it with his family lawyer.

The Board denied the request to use the decision in family court, finding it irrelevant to the best interests of the child determination.

However, the Board granted the request to share the decision with the applicant's family lawyer, subject to the lawyer being bound by the confidentiality provisions.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of the impoundment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had explicitly forbidden her son from driving the vehicle and had lent it only to her daughter-in-law.

The son took the vehicle without permission following an argument.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of the Highway Traffic Act and ordered the Registrar to release it.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

Prior to the hearing, the Registrar ended the suspension and downgraded the appellant's licence to Class G(Z).

The Tribunal found that the appeal of the suspension was moot because the suspension was no longer in effect.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to adjudicate the moot appeal, noting the appellant's intention to file a separate appeal regarding the licence downgrade.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant rental car company appealed the 180-day impoundment of its motor vehicle, which was seized when a renter was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish due diligence because it relied solely on the driver's representation and a visual check of a Quebec licence without taking reasonable steps to verify its validity.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had thousands of other vehicles available as alternatives.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which occurred after her friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship as she needed the vehicle to commute to her nursing job.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish that there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had successfully used taxis, rides from a coworker, and could potentially use public transportation.

The appellant's commercial trailer was impounded for 15 days after an inspection found a critical defect, specifically over 50% defective wheel brakes.

The appellant missed the 15-day statutory deadline to appeal the impoundment and brought a motion to extend the time to file its appeal, 43 days late.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the four-factor test for extending time and found the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed period, the delay was significant, the Registrar would suffer prejudice, and the appeal lacked demonstrated merit.

The motion to extend time was denied.

The appellant towing company sought a stay of an order cancelling its Tow Operator and Vehicle Storage Certificates pending its appeal.

The cancellation was based on allegations including the creation and transmission of an inappropriate video of a deceased collision victim by an employee.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The Tribunal also found the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, prioritizing public safety and consumer protection over the appellant's financial interests.

The motion for a stay was denied.

The appellant brought a motion seeking a stay of the suspension of his Class A driver's licence pending the appeal of the suspension.

The Tribunal applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test.

While finding a serious issue to be tried, the Tribunal concluded the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The motion for a stay was denied.