Stephen Scharbach

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized when her partner was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no exceptional hardship, as the financial impact would not be lasting.

However, the Tribunal found the appellant exercised due diligence, as she had seen the driver's physical licence card mailed by the Ministry of Transportation and was unaware of the online licence checking service.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle ordered released.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence on medical grounds following an involuntary hospitalization involving erratic driving and suspected substance use.

The Registrar required medical confirmation of abstinence and mental stability before considering reinstatement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the available medical evidence, including hospital records, confirmed the appellant suffered from a substance use disorder and a mental health condition that significantly affected his ability to drive safely.

The appellants, a real estate broker and brokerage, brought a motion to stay a Tribunal order revoking their registrations pending an appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

While finding that the appeal raised a serious issue and the appellants would suffer irreparable financial harm, the Tribunal concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the Registrar.

Given the serious findings of past misconduct, including misuse of trust funds and threatening clients, the public interest in protection outweighed the appellants' financial interests.

The motion for a stay was denied.

7-Eleven applied for a liquor sales licence for a portion of its convenience store in Toronto.

Several local residents objected, raising concerns about underage drinking, intoxicated customers, and neighborhood disruption.

The Registrar issued a proposal to review the application, and 7-Eleven requested a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the objectors raised valid concerns, 7-Eleven's compliance plan and the legal requirements under the Liquor Licence and Control Act adequately mitigated the risks.

The Tribunal concluded that the objectors failed to establish that issuing the licence was not in the public interest and directed the Registrar to issue the licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her husband was caught driving it in violation of his ignition interlock condition.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the husband, as a joint owner, did not steal the vehicle within the meaning of the Act, and that the appellant had access to an alternative vehicle, meaning the impoundment resulted in inconvenience rather than exceptional hardship.

7-Eleven applied for a liquor sales licence for on-premises consumption at its Sarnia convenience store.

The Registrar issued a proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents.

The objectors argued that selling alcohol in a convenience store with gas pumps would increase public harm, drinking and driving, and exacerbate existing neighbourhood issues like loitering and petty crime.

The Tribunal found that while the residents' concerns were legitimate, they were adequately mitigated by 7-Eleven's compliance plan, which included restricted hours, small capacity, and mandatory food purchases with alcohol.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions, including restricted hours of sale and posting contact information for resident complaints.

The appellants appealed a proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to refuse to renew their motor vehicle inspection station licence and to revoke the principal's registration as an inspection mechanic.

The appellants failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the appellants had issued structural inspection certificates bearing falsified signatures and failed to collect or submit required documentation to verify that vehicles were structurally sound.

The Tribunal directed the Director to carry out the proposals and ordered the appellants to pay $1,000 in costs for acting unreasonably by abandoning the appeal without notice.

The appellant, a condominium management provider, appealed a proposal by the Registrar to attach a condition to its licence.

The condition would prohibit a 50% shareholder, who had previously directed condominium funds to his own companies and faced criminal charges, from being an 'interested person' in the appellant.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar has broad discretion under section 40 of the Condominium Management Services Act, 2015 to impose appropriate conditions.

Given the shareholder's egregious past conduct and his ability to indirectly control the appellant, the Tribunal concluded the condition was necessary to protect the public and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Travel Industry Council of Ontario denying her claim for compensation from the Travel Industry Compensation Fund.

The claim was initially denied because the funds were paid to an unregistered company.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing and did not request an adjournment.

As the appellant bore the onus of proving eligibility for reimbursement and presented no evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and refused the claim.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse its application for registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement to grant the registration subject to conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to register the appellant as a motor vehicle dealer subject to the agreed conditions.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was caught being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen by his friend while he was asleep in the back seat, and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship by jeopardizing his employment as an apprentice pipefitter.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was taken without consent, constituting theft, and that the lack of alternative transportation would lead to significant financial loss and potential loss of employment.

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

The appellant, a licensed funeral director, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his licence and an immediate suspension order issued by the Registrar.

The Registrar alleged the appellant failed to comply with COVID-19 public health requirements, including face mask mandates and a directive to implement a staff vaccine policy.

The Tribunal held an interim hearing to determine whether to extend the suspension order until the conclusion of the main appeal hearing.

Finding credible information that the appellant failed to comply with the Registrar's directive and public health measures, the Tribunal concluded that extending the suspension was in the public interest to protect vulnerable attendees at funeral establishments.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after his son was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because his daughter needed the vehicle to commute to university.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that viable alternatives existed, such as online classes, ridesharing, and using the household's three other vehicles, and that the situation amounted to inconvenience rather than exceptional hardship.

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

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's past conduct, specifically his 2020 convictions for evading income tax and failing to remit HST during the 2014 and 2015 tax years while employed as a general manager of a registered dealer.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's willful and sophisticated scheme to evade over $117,000 in taxes constituted a breach of trust and demonstrated a willingness to contravene the law for personal financial gain.

The Tribunal concluded that this past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

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

The appellant, a sports pub, appealed a Notice of Proposal and an Order of the Registrar to immediately suspend and revoke its liquor licence.

The Registrar's actions were based on the appellant's deliberate refusal to comply with public health requirements under the Reopening Ontario Act, including mask mandates, proof of vaccination, and contact tracing.

The appellant argued the requirements were voluntary and conflicted with the Canadian Bill of Rights and other laws.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal rejected these arguments, finding the requirements mandatory and valid provincial law.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's past and present conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that it would not carry on business in accordance with the law.

Given the appellant's unequivocal refusal to comply with the law, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the liquor licence.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's travel agent registration due to repeated failures to comply with conditions imposed in 2016 and a long-standing pattern of non-compliance.

The appellant had repeatedly failed to file required financial information, maintain minimum working capital, and respond to the Registrar's inquiries, including those related to consumer complaints.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant breached the conditions of its registration and that its past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe it would not carry on business in accordance with the law.

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

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after it was driven by her son-in-law, whose Ontario driver's licence was suspended for life.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no exceptional hardship because the appellant had an alternative vehicle.

However, the Tribunal found the appellant exercised due diligence because she was deceived by her son-in-law and had recently verified his valid Arizona driver's licence, unaware of his suspended Ontario licence.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after it was driven by her partner in contravention of an ignition interlock condition on his driver's licence.

The appellant argued that the condition was no longer in effect and that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine the licence status.

The Tribunal found that the condition was still in effect and that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because the driver's licence card explicitly noted the condition, which should have prompted further inquiries.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their claim for compensation for construction deficiencies in their new custom home.

Tarion brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the appellants had previously settled a civil lawsuit against the builder and signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal found that the comprehensive release, which discharged the builder from all claims and warranties relating to the home's construction, eliminated the appellants' cause of action against the builder.

As a cause of action against the builder is a statutory prerequisite for compensation from the guarantee fund under section 14(3) of the Ontario New Homes Warranties Plan Act, the Tribunal granted the motion and directed Tarion to deny the claims.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar of Bailiffs to refuse the renewal of his registration as an assistant bailiff.

The Registrar alleged the appellant provided false information by answering 'no' to a question about pending criminal charges on his renewal application, when he was in fact facing a Criminal Code charge.

The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the appellant knowingly provided false information, rejecting his claim that the error was inadvertent.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the renewal.