Stephen Scharbach

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

The Registrar alleged the appellant breached conditions of her registration, misappropriated funds from clients and others, failed to pay rent to landlords, contravened the Act by accepting commissions from someone other than her brokerage, and could not be expected to be financially responsible given her 13-year status as an undischarged bankrupt.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar proved the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe she would not carry on business with honesty, integrity, and in accordance with the law.

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

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to suspend his registration as a real estate broker for making false statements and having administrative staff complete his continuing education courses.

Shortly after the hearing commenced, the parties reached a resolution and filed Minutes of Settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order suspending the appellant's registration for 60 days and requiring him to complete an ethics course.

The appellant requested a hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal to consider a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 to refuse his application for registration as a real estate salesperson.

Prior to the hearing, the parties resolved the issues and requested an order on consent.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to register the appellant subject to conditions for a period of five years, including prohibitions on acting as a broker of record or having signing authority on statutory trust accounts.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship due to her chronic medical condition and need to attend weekly physiotherapy appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate she had considered and inquired into every reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, such as asking family for assistance, investigating accessible transit, or combining taxi trips.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized when her partner was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition on his licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence in verifying his licence status and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the licence status with the Ministry of Transportation and had access to a viable alternative vehicle, thereby not meeting the threshold for exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant, a single father of four young children, argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because he had no alternative means to transport his children to school, resulting in a significant and lasting loss of education.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no viable alternative transportation and that the children's ongoing lateness and absences would negatively impact their educational development.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

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

His driver's licence was suspended following a Criminal Code conviction, and he was caught driving the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship because the vehicle was the sole means for the appellant's spouse to travel to her employment as an in-home personal care worker.

As the appellant was unemployed, the family relied entirely on the spouse's income, and there was no viable alternative transportation.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after police discovered it being driven by a person with a suspended licence.

The appellant had lent the vehicle to her daughter, who then allowed the suspended driver to operate it.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish due diligence, as neither she nor her daughter took steps to verify the driver's licence status.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the household had access to another vehicle and the regulation prohibits considering mere inconvenience.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which occurred after police discovered it being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant filed his appeal 16 days after the 15-day deadline.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to appeal, finding the appellant was unaware of the impoundment until after the deadline passed.

On the merits, the appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional financial hardship due to the impound fees.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment, finding the appellant had an alternative primary vehicle, which precluded consideration of financial loss under the regulation.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by someone prohibited from driving without an ignition interlock device.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had an alternative means of transportation to work through her family, precluding consideration of financial loss under the regulation.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its only vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship, as the vehicle was essential for transporting equipment and crew to its sole ongoing electrical contracting job.

The Tribunal found that there was no viable alternative to the impounded vehicle and that the impoundment would result in immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss to the company and its key employee, threatening the company's continued viability.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was directed to release the vehicle.

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

She filed her appeal eight days after the 15-day deadline.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time, finding the appellant was unaware of her right to appeal until she received the Registrar's notice.

On the merits, the appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because her household of three adults relied on two vehicles.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had an alternative vehicle available to meet the household's transportation needs, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship under the Regulation.

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

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties reached a resolution and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered that the appellant's registration be suspended for three months, during which she must complete a certification course, followed by a two-year period with conditions restricting her from acting as a final signatory or holding a controlling interest in a motor vehicle dealer.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred when police discovered it being driven by a driver with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed her appeal after the 15-day deadline and sought an extension.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal once she learned of her right to do so.

On the merits, the appellant argued she exercised due diligence by relying on the driver's assurances that his licence had been reinstated.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that given the driver's history of false claims and a previous impoundment, a reasonable person would have required documentary verification of the licence status.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after he was caught driving while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

He argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to his rural location, need to commute to work, and modest financial circumstances.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had a viable alternative vehicle (his fiancé's car) and that financial loss could not be considered exceptional hardship under the regulation because the loss was experienced by the suspended driver himself.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after it was driven by an individual whose licence required an ignition interlock device.

The Tribunal found the appellant did not exercise due diligence, as she failed to physically examine the driver's licence.

However, the Tribunal ordered the vehicle released on the basis of exceptional hardship, finding that the appellant, a single mother living in a rural area, had no reasonable alternative transportation and required the vehicle to ensure the health and safety of her two young children.

The appellants appealed the 45-day impoundment of their vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by their daughter, whose licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

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

The Tribunal found that the daughter took the vehicle without consent and with the intent to temporarily deprive the appellants of its use, satisfying the definition of a stolen vehicle.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a driver whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship for his family, citing medical appointments and lack of public transit.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the family had access to a second operational vehicle, public transportation, and carpooling.

The Tribunal concluded that while the impoundment caused inconvenience, it did not meet the threshold for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his commercial cube van under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship to his concrete installation business.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove there was no viable alternative to the impounded vehicle, as he was able to continue operating using his other trucks, albeit less efficiently.

Because an alternative existed, the Tribunal was precluded by regulation from considering financial loss as exceptional hardship.

The applicant applied for a liquor sales licence for premises in Leamington.

The Municipality of Leamington objected, arguing that the applicant was acting in concert with the property owner, who had a significant history of non-compliance with municipal and provincial laws, including fire safety violations.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Review, and the applicant requested a hearing.

The Tribunal found that while the property owner's past compliance record was poor, the evidence was insufficient to prove on a balance of probabilities that the applicant and the property owner were acting in concert.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence.