Stephen Scharbach

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after being driven by a driver violating an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal 8 days after the 15-day deadline and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

Despite receiving notice, the appellant failed to attend the teleconference motion hearing and provided no evidence.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding the appellant failed to meet the onus of establishing that the justice of the case required an extension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The refusal was based on a 2006 robbery conviction and the appellant's provision of false information regarding his role in that crime on his application.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant did provide false information by minimizing his role contrary to court findings, his extensive rehabilitation over 14 years demonstrated that his past conduct no longer afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

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

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence.

The suspension was initially based on a report of substance use disorder, which was later resolved.

However, a subsequent medical report indicated the appellant suffers from mild cognitive impairment and requires a functional driving assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision, finding that the uncontradicted medical evidence justified maintaining the suspension until a functional assessment is completed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's decision to impound her vehicle for 45 days after her husband was caught driving it in contravention of a condition requiring an ignition interlock device.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her medical condition requiring regular travel for blood tests.

The Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that alternative means of transportation were available to the appellant, and that inconvenience cannot be considered as exceptional hardship under the regulations.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her vehicle after it was driven by her former partner whose licence was suspended.

The sole ground of appeal was exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that the exceptional hardship ground was unavailable under section 50.2(4) of the Highway Traffic Act because another vehicle owned by the appellant had been previously impounded under section 55.1.

The appellants brought a motion for a stay of the Tribunal's order suspending their motor vehicle dealer and salesperson registrations pending their appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the appeal raised a serious issue to be tried, the appellants would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted due to unrecoverable financial losses and the rendering of their appeal moot, and the balance of convenience favoured the appellants as there was no evidence they posed an urgent risk to the public.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 proposed to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealership, its owner/operator, and a salesperson.

The proposal was based on allegations of retaining an unregistered salesperson, using identities of others to purchase vehicles, falsifying documents, and failing to disclose required information to purchasers (such as accident damage, structural damage, and out-of-province registration).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the allegations regarding the unregistered salesperson and use of identities unproven.

However, the Tribunal found that the salesperson falsified bills of sale and failed to disclose required information in several transactions, and that the dealership and its owner failed to ensure compliance with regulatory disclosure requirements, thereby breaching conditions of their registration.

The Tribunal concluded that revocation was unwarranted but ordered a 90-day suspension for the salesperson and a 120-day suspension for the dealership and its owner.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles ordered the cancellation of the appellant's Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificates due to a poor safety record, including a failed audit, vehicle inspection deficiencies, and an unpaid fine.

The appellant appealed the cancellation to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while the Registrar's concerns were justified, the appellant had implemented an action plan and taken concrete steps to improve its safety performance.

The Tribunal modified the Registrar's order, replacing the cancellation with a 20-day suspension of the CVOR certificates.

The appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for its restaurant.

A local resident and business owner objected, arguing that granting the licence was not in the public interest due to safety concerns, late-night disturbances near the premises, and prior municipal by-law infractions for smoking shisha.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objector failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest, noting a lack of context connecting the street disturbances directly to the appellant's operations.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the liquor licence without conditions.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke his horse racing licence and an immediate suspension order.

The proposal was based on the appellant's past conduct, which included uttering threats and damaging the property of another licensee after being suspended pending an investigation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's violent reaction to regulatory action provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, or the public interest.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's proposal to revoke the licence, finding that conditions were not an appropriate alternative.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by her domestic partner, a suspended driver.

She argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that exceptional hardship was not available as a ground of appeal because the appellant had a previous vehicle impounded.

Furthermore, even if available, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship as she had alternatives to the impounded vehicle and the financial cost of impoundment could not be considered without demonstrating a lack of alternatives.

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

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her medical conditions and need for the vehicle to attend medical appointments and obtain supplies.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to alternatives such as public transit and assistance from her spouse, and that the impoundment did not pose a threat to her health or safety.

The Registrar issued a proposal to suspend the Appellant's liquor licence for 30 days for permitting drunkenness and failing to clear signs of alcohol consumption.

The Appellant conceded the failure to clear signs of alcohol but appealed the allegation of permitting drunkenness.

The Tribunal found that a patron was in an advanced state of intoxication in a karaoke room, and that the Appellant's staff ought to have known of her condition before an inspector brought it to their attention.

The Tribunal concluded the Appellant contravened section 45(1) of Regulation 719/90 and directed the parties to provide written submissions on penalty.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days due to a suspended driver's licence record.

The vehicle was released after 11 days, and the appellant subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the Licence Appeal Tribunal to recoup the impound costs, along with a motion to extend the 15-day appeal deadline.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal granted the Registrar's motion, finding that under section 50.2(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, the right to appeal an impoundment is only available while the vehicle is currently impounded.

Because the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the appellant's motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after police discovered it being driven by an individual whose licence required an ignition interlock device, which the vehicle lacked.

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant's husband, the primary user of the vehicle, had lent it to the driver with the appellant's implied consent.

As the vehicle was not taken without consent, it was not stolen, and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for a proposed restaurant and programmable art space in Kensington Market.

The Registrar issued a notice of proposal to review the application after receiving objections from residents, the City of Toronto, and the Friends of Kensington Market.

The objectors argued the licence was not in the public interest due to concerns about noise, disturbance, and increased traffic.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest, noting the appellant's business model was less likely to cause disturbances than existing problematic establishments.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence but attached conditions restricting hours of service and requiring signage, a contact number for residents, and exterior lighting to address community concerns.

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

The parties reached a resolution and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the Registrar to register the appellant subject to several conditions, including disclosure requirements and restrictions on acting as a dealer, manager, or final signatory for specified periods.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle caused exceptional hardship to his family and significant financial loss.

The vehicle had been impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that while the loss of the vehicle caused significant inconvenience, the appellant was able to make alternate transportation arrangements.

Under the regulations, inconvenience cannot be considered, and financial loss only qualifies as exceptional hardship if no alternative transportation is available.

The appellant appealed two monetary penalties imposed by the Registrar for keeping adulterated liquor for sale and permitting patrons to remove liquor from the licensed premises.

The Tribunal found that the appellant kept watered-down rum for sale, noting that lack of knowledge or intent is not a defence to this strict liability regulatory offence.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant's manager knew or ought to have known that patrons were leaving the premises with cups of beer.

The appeal was dismissed and the monetary penalties totaling $2,500 were confirmed.

The appellant condominium corporation missed the deadline to request conciliation from Tarion regarding first and second-year warranty claims for common element deficiencies.

Tarion deemed the claims withdrawn and refused to extend the deadline.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that extraordinary circumstances caused the delay.

The Tribunal found that a combination of factors, including the sudden death of the property manager's spouse, an overwhelming workload, chaotic records left by a previous manager, and miscommunications with an engineering consultant, constituted extraordinary circumstances.

The appeal was allowed, and Tarion was ordered to extend the deadline and accept the conciliation request.