Simon Dann

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's liquor sales licence for permitting unlawful gaming on the premises.

The Tribunal previously found the appellant in breach of the regulation.

On the issue of sanction, the Registrar sought revocation or a 30 to 40-day suspension, while the appellant argued for a 7-day suspension.

The Tribunal ordered a 21-day suspension and added a condition prohibiting gaming machines on the premises, balancing the need for deterrence with the appellant's limited disciplinary history.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed a 14-day suspension of the appellant's liquor licence following an incident where a security staff member assaulted a patron.

The Tribunal previously found the appellant in breach of s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90.

On the issue of sanction, the Registrar sought a 10 to 12-day suspension, while the appellant argued for no suspension, noting the patron initiated the altercation and the appellant had no prior disciplinary history.

The Tribunal found a 10 to 12-day suspension unduly harsh but determined a suspension was necessary for specific deterrence, as the appellant provided no evidence of corrective action taken with its security staff.

A two-day suspension was ordered.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's liquor licence, alleging the appellant permitted unlawful gambling and served alcohol outside prescribed hours.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the presence of casino-style gaming machines with kill switches and reset buttons in a back room, along with video evidence of their use, established on a balance of probabilities that unlawful gambling was permitted.

However, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to prove alcohol was served outside prescribed hours, accepting the appellant's testimony that the bottles contained non-alcoholic flavourings.

The Tribunal found a breach of s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 but no breach of s. 25(1), and requested written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

Following a finding that the licensee breached multiple provisions of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, including permitting drunkenness and failing to facilitate an inspection, the parties provided written submissions on sanction.

The Registrar sought a 25 to 30-day suspension, while the licensee argued for 7 to 10 days.

The Tribunal ordered a 23-day suspension, emphasizing specific and general deterrence given the significance and repetition of the breaches shortly after the licence was issued.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days, alleging two incidents of permitting disorderly conduct and failing to take reasonable measures to deter it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the licensee in breach of s. 45(1) of the regulation for an incident where a security staff member excessively assaulted a patron.

However, the Tribunal found no breach of s. 45.1 for a separate incident involving a patron's altercation with a police officer, as the security staff acted reasonably by stepping back once police took control.

The matter of sanction was deferred for written submissions.

The Appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to revoke their Motor Vehicle Inspection Station licence and mechanic's registration.

The Ministry presented evidence that the Appellants had issued safety certificates for numerous vehicles with severe defects, including extensive corrosion, that should not have passed inspection.

The Appellants argued that they lacked education on corrosion and relied on advice from other mechanics.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellants failed to meet inspection requirements and posed a risk to public safety.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and ordered the revocation of the licence and registration.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse to renew the registration of Key2Careers College of Business and Technology Inc. under the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005, citing a lack of vocational student enrollments for more than two successive periods and concerns regarding the school's financial responsibility.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the school had no vocational students, failed to meet revenue projections, and was providing non-vocational programs that did not require registration under the Act.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to refuse to renew the registration.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed a 30-day suspension of the appellant's liquor sales licence for multiple alleged infractions across six inspections.

The Tribunal found that the licensee breached the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations by failing to facilitate an inspection, failing to clear signs of service within 45 minutes, permitting drunkenness on three separate occasions, and allowing an unauthorized person behind the bar.

The allegation regarding inaccurate liquor pricing lists was dismissed.

The parties were directed to provide written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her spouse, a suspended driver, was stopped for speeding.

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

The Tribunal found no exceptional hardship as the appellant had alternative transportation.

However, the Tribunal found the vehicle was taken without the appellant's consent, satisfying the ground that it was stolen.

The impoundment was set aside and the vehicle ordered released.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor sales licence for failing to clear signs of service and consumption within 45 minutes after the permitted period, and for exceeding the licensed capacity.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement wherein the appellant accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal ordered a 55-day suspension of the liquor licence on consent.

The appellant, a used car dealer, appealed the impoundment of a leased vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the driver, who was not the lessee but an authorized driver, was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that due diligence was exercised at the time of the lease by obtaining a copy of the driver's valid licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had exercised due diligence at the time of the transaction and could not reasonably be expected to continuously monitor the driver's licence status.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their tow truck under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after an employee was caught driving it while their licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant suffered financial loss, they had alternative vehicles to continue operating their towing business and the loss was not immediate, significant, and lasting as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the appellant's registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson, alleging repeated non-disclosure of past criminal convictions and trading in vehicles without registration.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant did repeatedly fail to disclose past convictions on multiple applications, the Registrar failed to prove the allegations of unregistered vehicle sales.

The Tribunal concluded that the non-disclosure alone did not provide reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to grant the appellant registration as a motor vehicle salesperson only, subject to strict conditions including employment only by a franchised dealer and mandatory disclosure of any future charges or convictions.

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 vehicle was impounded after being driven by the appellant's partner, whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no alternative means of transportation available, as she had a second vehicle and could walk to work.

The Tribunal also found no threat to health or safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant argued that the loss of the vehicle caused hardship for his daughter's employment and his own work.

The Tribunal found that the appellant managed to provide alternative transportation and did not suffer immediate, significant, and lasting financial or employment loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim that a basement wall crack leading to a water leak constituted a major structural defect.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the water penetration was limited to a small foyer area, was easily cleaned up, and did not result in lasting damage or prevent the use of a significant portion of the home.

The Tribunal concluded the issue did not meet the definition of a major structural defect and directed Tarion to deny the warranty claim.

Following the conclusion of a hearing, the Appellants brought a motion seeking leave to file post-hearing written submissions.

The Appellants argued that their counsel had rushed through oral submissions due to the late hour and omitted responses to certain evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, noting that both parties were explicitly offered the choice between oral and written submissions, chose oral submissions, and were assured they would not be rushed.

The Tribunal found that the request to file additional reasons was an afterthought.

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 vehicle was impounded after being driven by the appellant's common-law partner, whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal first granted an extension of time to appeal due to the appellant's absence following her father's death.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as public transit, and failed to provide evidence that she could not return to work without the vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded that exceptional hardship was not established and confirmed the impoundment.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor sales licence for allegedly exceeding the capacity of the licensed premises.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and the Registrar withdrew the Notice of Proposal.

The Tribunal closed its file.

The appellant applied for an additional licensed area to increase its indoor capacity by 119 persons.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents concerned about the aggregate number of patrons leaving late-night establishments in the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the appellant's specific operation caused issues or that the capacity increase would pose public safety concerns.

The objectors failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that issuing the licence was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence.