Stephen Scharbach

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code offence.

The appellant claimed the impoundment prevented him from visiting his infant daughter and operating his mould removal business.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no threat to the health or safety of anyone ordinarily transported by the vehicle, and concluding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that he had considered every reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle for his business.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse its application for a liquor sales licence.

The Registrar proposed refusal on the basis that an officer and director of the appellant was a member of the Neo-Black Movement (NBM), a criminal organization, which 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 found on a balance of probabilities that the NBM is a criminal organization and that the director is a member.

The Tribunal concluded that this membership provided reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the application.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, based on allegations of past conduct and false statements.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered the revocation of the appellant's registration, with the condition that he may apply for reinstatement after one year, provided he completes an anger management program, mandatory continuing education, and provides a criminal record check.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after her husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant lived in a rural area with no public transit and her only alternative vehicle was unsafe to drive.

The Tribunal concluded that forcing the appellant to drive the unsafe vehicle to her night-shift job threatened her safety, and losing her job would severely impact her family's income.

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

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a notice of proposal to revoke its builder registration under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The notice was served on September 28, 2020, but the appellant did not request a hearing until January 28, 2021, three and a half months after the 15-day deadline.

The Tribunal applied the multi-pronged test for extending time limits and found that the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, which was attributed to inadvertence.

Furthermore, the appellant did not demonstrate a substantive and reasonably arguable case on the merits.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the vehicle was the family's only means of transportation and was urgently needed to take her 10-year-old son to a specialist medical appointment.

The Tribunal found that no realistic alternative transportation was available and that the delay in medical treatment would pose a threat to the child's health and safety.

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

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse her registration as a gaming assistant under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's attendance at an illegal gaming house and her failure to disclose a past criminal charge and police investigation on her application.

The Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly attended an illegal gaming house on several occasions, demonstrating a willingness to contravene the law regarding legal gambling.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe she would not act as a gaming assistant in accordance with the law, integrity, honesty, or the public interest, and confirmed the Registrar's proposal to refuse registration.

Four trucking companies appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, which cancelled their Commercial Vehicle Operator Registration (CVOR) certificates.

The Registrar argued that the companies were related through the common management of a single individual who had a history of operating trucking businesses with poor safety records.

The Tribunal found that the companies were indeed related and that their collective poor safety records, including numerous hours of service violations and collisions, provided reason to believe they would not operate safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's order cancelling the CVOR certificates.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle salesperson and motor vehicle dealerships.

The Registrar alleged that the appellants failed to disclose previous accident damage to consumers, falsified bills of sale, failed to return deposits, and provided false statements on registration renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants engaged in a pattern of deception intended to avoid disclosure obligations, which afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

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

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after police discovered her son driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine her son's licence status and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant did not exercise due diligence, as she only asked her son and accepted his excuses without further inquiry.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as alternatives to the vehicle were available and there was no threat to health or safety.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence on medical grounds following a hospitalization for major depressive disorder.

The Registrar maintained the suspension, requiring a six-month period of stability after a subsequent hospital admission.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the second hospitalization was primarily for medication adjustment in a monitored setting, not a relapse.

Relying on the treating psychiatrist's opinion that the appellant's condition was stable and did not impair his functional abilities, the Tribunal concluded the condition did not significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence on medical grounds.

The Registrar suspended the licence after receiving reports from three physicians indicating the appellant suffered from cognitive impairment following a hospitalization.

The Registrar required a satisfactory functional driving assessment for reinstatement, which the appellant had not completed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the available medical information supported the conclusion that the appellant had a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and that a functional driving assessment was necessary before reinstatement.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing its appeal of a vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in finding the vehicle was not stolen and in its application of the due diligence standard.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law.

The original decision correctly required an intention to deprive the owner to establish the vehicle was stolen, which was absent as the employee was using the vehicle for company business.

Furthermore, the Tribunal correctly applied the due diligence standard, noting the appellant failed to verify the driver's licence validity.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that imposed conditions on his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson, specifically restricting his employment to an approved dealership.

The appellant argued that the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic constituted new evidence under Rule 18.2(d) of the Tribunal's Rules, making it difficult to find employment and comply with the condition.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the pandemic's impact was a change in circumstances arising after the hearing, rather than new evidence that existed at the time of the decision.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her son-in-law was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship and that the vehicle was stolen, as her son-in-law took it without her knowledge or consent.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that the appellant had secured a rental vehicle, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship based on financial loss under the Regulation.

The Tribunal also held that while the vehicle was taken without consent, it was not 'stolen' because the son-in-law intended to return it and did not intend to deprive the appellant of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which was seized after his son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that reasonable alternative transportation, such as public transit and taxis, was available to the appellant and his partner for their daily needs.

As alternatives were available, the Tribunal was prohibited from considering financial loss or inconvenience.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a family friend in violation of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, she exercised due diligence, and the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove the vehicle was stolen or that due diligence was exercised.

However, the Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle on the basis of exceptional hardship, finding that the appellant lacked reasonable transportation alternatives to access necessary dental and orthodontic care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence on medical grounds under the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was initiated after a physician reported that the appellant suffered from alcohol dependence and cognitive impairment.

The appellant subsequently submitted a substance use assessment confirming a diagnosis of severe substance use disorder, but failed to submit the required cognitive assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision, finding it reasonable to maintain the suspension until the appellant completes a one-year period of abstinence and provides the requested cognitive assessment.

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

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed a vehicle for work and to transport her seriously ill parents.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had the financial resources to rent an alternative vehicle, and therefore exceptional hardship was not demonstrated under the Highway Traffic Act and its regulations.

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its service vehicle, which was driven by an employee whose driver's licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen because the employee took it without authorization, and alternatively, that it exercised due diligence by collecting the employee's licence information upon hiring.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the vehicle was not stolen as the employee used it for company business without intent to deprive the owner.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish due diligence because it did not verify the validity of the employee's licence.