Simon Dann

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to review its liquor licence application due to objections from the City of Toronto and a residents group.

At the hearing, the parties engaged in mediation and reached a settlement.

The objectors withdrew their objections after the appellant agreed to attach specific conditions to the licence and erect a fence.

The Tribunal approved the liquor licence application subject to the agreed conditions.

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

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's failure to disclose past employment and pending criminal charges (which resulted in a conviction for theft over $5000) on his registration and renewal applications.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant made mistakes on his applications, he had taken responsibility for his past criminal conduct by making full restitution, completing a counselling program for a gambling addiction, and successfully completing his probation.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to revoke, subject to conditions on the appellant's registration.

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 fully disclose a prior criminal charge and subsequent conviction for harassment, as well as allegedly lying to a representative of the Registrar.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had provided sufficient disclosure, albeit in stages, and had been cooperative.

Relying on compelling character evidence from the appellant's employer, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty, integrity, and in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the registration subject to conditions.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of a travel agency due to ongoing trust accounting deficiencies, including commingling of funds and paying overhead expenses from the trust account.

The Appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while the Appellant failed to comply with trust accounting requirements, there was no evidence of financial irresponsibility or dishonesty towards consumers or suppliers.

The Tribunal modified the Registrar's proposal, ordering a 10-day suspension and imposing strict conditions for future compliance.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's boyfriend, a suspended driver, was found in care and control of it.

The appellant, a personal support worker with a limited income, argued that the loss of the vehicle would cause immediate and significant financial hardship and impact her elderly client.

The Tribunal found that the appellant proved exceptional hardship on a balance of probabilities and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

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

The vehicle was impounded after an employee was caught driving it while suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had found alternative means of transportation (rentals and personal vehicles) and failed to establish that the loss of the vehicle met the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

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 that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to his business.

The appellant was both the owner of the vehicle and the driver whose licence was suspended at the time of the impoundment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that under O. Reg. 631/98, financial loss cannot be considered when the owner and the suspended driver are the same person.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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 the appellant allowed a suspended driver to operate it.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by asking the driver if he was legal to drive, and claimed exceptional hardship due to her employment and childcare responsibilities.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship as she had alternative transportation options.

The Tribunal also found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by merely asking the driver if he was legal to drive without requesting to see his licence.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle after his son was caught driving it while suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was taken without his consent (stolen) and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship because he had alternative transportation options.

However, the Tribunal found the vehicle was taken without the appellant's consent, satisfying the definition of 'stolen' for the purposes of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the registrations of Dickson Motor Sales and Leasing Inc. as a motor vehicle dealer and Cameron Scott Dickson as a salesperson, alleging misappropriation of funds, falsification of documents, and failure to properly record transactions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct, including an acknowledgement of producing false invoices and taking unrecorded cash, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

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

The Registrar proposed to revoke the registration of the applicant travel agency due to concerns about financial responsibility, integrity, and trust account misuse.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had misused trust funds, failed to pay suppliers, overcharged consumers, and falsified bank records.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was under-capitalized and could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible or operate with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to revoke the applicant's liquor licence following police inspections that uncovered illegal gaming machines, poker tables, and trace amounts of cocaine, as well as various regulatory breaches.

The applicant had previously been found guilty in Provincial Court of several related charges, including permitting unlawful gambling and obstructing an inspection.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant committed several infractions, including permitting unlawful gambling and failing to properly post the licence and drink menus, there was insufficient evidence to prove he permitted drugs on the premises or failed to facilitate the second inspection.

Finding no continuing pattern of non-compliance that would suggest a lack of honesty and integrity, the Tribunal rejected the proposal to revoke the licence.

Instead, it ordered a 60-day suspension and imposed a condition requiring the installation of security cameras.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their new home warranty claims for floor defects.

Tarion denied the claims because they were submitted after the expiry of the first-year warranty period.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicants failed to submit their 30-day and first-year warranty forms within the required timeframes.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted expert engineering evidence that the builder had satisfactorily repaired a related Ontario Building Code violation.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the warranty claim.

The applicant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after she was caught driving while disqualified.

She filed an appeal of the impoundment 8 days after the 15-day limitation period expired.

The applicant brought a motion to extend the time for filing the appeal, arguing she was unaware of the deadline.

Applying the four-part test for extensions of time, the Tribunal found the applicant had no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant given the 45-day impoundment period, and the appeal lacked merit as the applicant admitted to driving while disqualified.

The motion for an extension of time was denied and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant licensee appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for exceeding the capacity of its licensed premises.

AGCO inspectors counted 127 and 131 patrons inside the establishment, which had a licensed interior capacity of 100.

The licensee argued its own security staff counted fewer than 90 patrons, but the Tribunal found this evidence lacked credibility.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar proved the over-capacity allegation on a balance of probabilities and confirmed the monetary penalty.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying several warranty claims regarding her new home.

The claims included an improperly sized kitchen gable, an unauthorized substitution of oak hardwood for maple, white Jacuzzi jets instead of chrome, paint splashes on cabinetry, and uneven staining on the staircase.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims for the kitchen gable, Jacuzzi jets, and paint splashes, finding no breach of warranty or proven damages.

The Tribunal found an unauthorized substitution occurred regarding the hardwood flooring and awarded $4,025 as the difference in value between oak and maple.

The Tribunal also awarded $250 for one defectively stained staircase cap.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of its tow truck under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after an employee, who was not an authorized driver, drove it while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the impoundment caused an immediate, significant, and lasting financial impact.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence.

She had loaned the vehicle to her boyfriend, who subsequently allowed a friend with a suspended licence to drive.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had taken appropriate steps by confirming her boyfriend's licence was valid and instructing him not to let anyone else drive.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant met the standard for due diligence and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The applicant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for contravening section 43 of Ontario Regulation 719/90 by exceeding the licensed capacity of its premises on two occasions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the evidence of the AGCO inspectors established on a balance of probabilities that the establishment was over capacity on both dates.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the monetary penalty.

The applicant employer appealed the impoundment of its commercial vehicle after an employee was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The applicant argued for release based on due diligence and exceptional hardship under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the exceptional hardship claim due to lack of evidence but granted the appeal on the basis of due diligence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's practice of checking driver abstracts every six months was reasonable for a small seasonal business, and that an abstract pulled on the day the employee was recalled to work would have shown a valid licence.