Terrance A. Sweeney

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming regarding an application for additional licensed areas at Fynn's of Temple Bar.

Following a pre-hearing, the Licence Appeal Tribunal approved the application subject to conditions, including restrictions on amplified sound and notification requirements for future condition removal applications.

The Applicant, Toronto School of Technology Inc., appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse to renew its registration under the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005.

The Registrar's investigation revealed that the Applicant had engaged in egregious conduct, including providing unauthorized refunds to students funded by the Second Career program, delivering vocational programs remotely without approval, failing to maintain proper student records, and scheduling instructors to teach multiple classes simultaneously.

The Tribunal found the evidence against the Applicant compelling and rejected the Applicant's defense of an "honest but mistaken belief." The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant failed to operate the college in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity, and ordered the Superintendent to refuse to renew the registration.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying most of his claims regarding defects in his newly constructed luxury home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the electrical, minor, and most structural claims, finding that the builder's use of alternative solutions for building paper and weep holes complied with the Ontario Building Code.

However, the Tribunal found that the builder breached its warranty by unilaterally substituting 6mm exterior sheathing for the 12.7mm specified in the construction plans, and by installing an oak veneer staircase instead of the solid oak staircase required by the purchase agreement.

The Tribunal ordered the builder to repair a masonry post and ordered Tarion to pay the applicant $14,170 in damages for the sheathing and staircase substitutions.

The applicant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its plates.

The applicant had an overall safety violation rate of 107.3%, placing it in the worst 0.2% of carriers in Ontario.

Despite a warning letter and a failed facility audit, the applicant's safety record deteriorated further.

The Tribunal found that the applicant presented no defence or plan for improvement and confirmed the Registrar's order to cancel the certificate and seize the plates.

The applicant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for serving liquor after 2:00 a.m. and failing to remove evidence of drinking before 2:45 a.m.

At the hearing, the applicant admitted the allegations but requested a reduction in the penalty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that under subsection 14.1(7) of the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996, it only has jurisdiction to confirm or set aside the monetary penalty, not to vary it.

The Tribunal confirmed the monetary penalty.

The applicant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for a contravention of section 43 of Ontario Regulation 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act.

The dispute centered on whether the applicant's patio exceeded its licensed capacity of 214 patrons during an inspection.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the AGCO inspectors, who conducted actual counts, over the estimates provided by the applicant's staff.

The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the patio was over capacity and confirmed the monetary penalty.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the basis of exceptional hardship.

Her husband, whose licence was suspended, took the vehicle while intoxicated and was involved in an accident.

The applicant argued that the loss of the vehicle caused hardship for her and her daughter.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had access to alternative transportation through her mother and friends, and that her daughter could take the bus to school.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove exceptional hardship on a balance of probabilities and confirmed the impoundment.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle caused exceptional hardship.

The applicant's driver's licence was suspended in the United States for impaired driving, and she was stopped at the Canadian border.

She claimed hardship because her daughter required the vehicle to attend after-school tutoring.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that alternatives were available for the daughter's schooling and that the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship on a balance of probabilities.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by his father at the time it was detained.

The applicant had left the vehicle and keys with his father, whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the vehicle was stolen, noting the lack of corroborating evidence and the applicant's admission that he did not need the vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's brother allowed a third party with a suspended licence to drive it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant failed to prove exceptional hardship because he was able to get rides to work and owned a second vehicle that his sister was using.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the applicant's registration as a lottery retailer.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Registrar alleged that the applicant breached its terms of registration by allowing the sole director's husband, who was explicitly prohibited from involvement, to manage the lottery account and sell lottery products.

The Tribunal found that the applicant breached the terms of registration and rejected the director's claim that she misunderstood the terms.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal and revoke the applicant's registration.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant allowed an acquaintance of three weeks to drive it, and police discovered his licence was suspended.

The applicant argued she exercised due diligence by visually checking the licence and claimed exceptional hardship due to needing the vehicle for work and family transport.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant did not exercise due diligence by lending the vehicle to someone she barely knew without further checks, and that no exceptional hardship existed because she owned other vehicles.