Rupinder Hans

The applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The respondent facility argued that the child's complex mental health issues, history of suicidal ideation, and pattern of evading the facility placed her at risk of serious bodily harm.

The Board found that the criteria for emergency admission under subsection 171(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act were not met, as the evidence did not establish that the child posed a risk of serious bodily harm to herself or others as a result of her mental disorder at the time of admission.

The Board ordered the child's release.

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 her son was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause 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 used rental vehicles, borrowed vehicles, and obtained rides to meet her employment and caregiving responsibilities.

The appellant trucking company sought an extension of time to appeal a Cancellation and Seizure Order relating to its CVOR certificate, having filed its appeal 122 days after the statutory deadline.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test for extending time and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed period, the delay was excessive, and the delay prejudiced the Registrar.

Furthermore, the appeal lacked merit as the appellant did not have valid insurance and its sole driver's licence was suspended.

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

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a decision confirming the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle for driving while suspended.

She argued that the Tribunal made an error and sought to introduce new evidence regarding the financial and emotional hardship caused by the impoundment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the appellant was attempting to re-argue her case and that the new evidence of hardship would not have changed the outcome, as she failed to demonstrate a lack of reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

The appellant towing company brought a motion for a stay of a cancellation order issued by the Director of Towing and Vehicle Storage Standards pending its appeal.

The Director had cancelled the appellant's certificates based on allegations of staged collisions and record-keeping deficiencies.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found there was a serious issue to be tried, the appellant would suffer irreparable harm including potential business collapse if the stay was not granted, and the balance of convenience favoured the appellant given its implementation of new compliance protocols.

The motion for a stay was granted.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son was caught driving it without an ignition interlock device, contrary to his licence conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove that no alternative transportation was available, as she had access to two other vehicles, rides from family and coworkers, ride-sharing services, and a rental vehicle.

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

The appellants failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the appellants repeatedly failed to produce required trust account reconciliation statements and bank records despite multiple requests from the regulator.

The Tribunal concluded 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 appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to suspend the registrations.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant was caught driving while her licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued her licence was not suspended, she exercised due diligence, and the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the licence was suspended immediately upon her guilty plea, she failed to exercise due diligence by not understanding her probation order, and she did not establish exceptional hardship because alternative transportation options like taxis and walking were available.

The appellant appealed an Administrative Penalty Order (APO) issued by the Registrar for holding itself out as a builder of new homes without a licence, contrary to s. 37(2) of the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's website and social media actively advertised custom home building services, constituting a contravention of the Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the APO of $8,152.17 was reasonable, noting the appellant's delayed compliance after being notified of the contravention, and confirmed the order.

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

The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's past conduct as a registered dealer, which included repeated failures to disclose vehicle accident histories and total loss declarations to customers.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant presented new evidence of completing an automotive certification course, his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration, finding that conditions would not adequately protect the public interest.

The appellant appealed a 90-day driver's licence suspension issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under section 48.3.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in the appellant's absence pursuant to Rule 3.7.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

As the appellant presented no evidence, he failed to establish the statutory grounds for appeal under section 50.1(2) of the Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her son was caught driving it while subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as she did not take reasonable steps to confirm her son's licence status, such as checking with the Ministry of Transportation or examining the physical licence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, noting the appellant had access to alternative transportation, including walking, rides from coworkers, and an alternative vehicle undergoing repairs.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative means of transportation available, including two other vehicles and taxi services, and therefore failed to prove exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she had been using a rental vehicle, public transportation, and ride-sharing services.

Because an alternative was available, the Tribunal could not consider financial or employment losses, and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to transport her cousin to cancer treatments and her cousin's children to school.

However, the appellant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found the appellant did not prove there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, noting evidence that she had two other registered vehicles.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant was caught driving while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative means of transportation and that his financial losses were primarily due to his licence suspension, not the impoundment.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle, which was seized when his stepson and co-owner was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen because the driver was a registered co-owner.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the appellant's family had access to an alternative vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class G driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically a musculoskeletal condition/motor function ability impairment.

The suspension was initiated after a police report detailed the appellant's difficulty parallel parking and physical limitations.

The Tribunal found, based on an assessment by the appellant's family physician noting diabetic neuropathy and general weakness, that the appellant suffers from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the suspension, noting the appellant must undergo a functional driving assessment to demonstrate his ability to drive safely.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing despite multiple notices and an adjournment.

Based solely on the Notice of Appeal, the adjudicator found insufficient evidence to prove that no alternatives to the impounded vehicle were available.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle after it was caught being driven by an employee whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence because the employee had obtained a commercial licence in Newfoundland, and the appellant assumed this permitted him to drive in Ontario.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to take reasonable steps, such as requesting an Ontario driver's abstract or checking with the Ministry of Transportation, to verify the employee's driving privileges in Ontario.