Zahra Dhanani

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after she loaned it to a friend, who then loaned it to a suspended driver without her knowledge.

The appellant appealed the impoundment on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant, a self-employed cleaner with a low income living in a remote area, had no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment would cause immediate, significant, and lasting loss, thereby establishing exceptional hardship.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a motor vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded because the driver, the boyfriend of the appellant's daughter, had a suspended licence.

The appeal was filed over six months after the 15-day deadline.

The Tribunal applied the factors for extending time and found the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit and had no reasonable chance of success on the merits, as he had alternative transportation.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their new home warranty claims against the builder.

The claims involved a missing bidet, defective grout, and damaged hardwood floors.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no breach of warranty, noting the bidet was not in the purchase agreement, the grout met industry standards, and the floor damage was not reported during the pre-delivery inspection.

The appeal was dismissed.

The parties reached a settlement agreement during a case conference to resolve a new home warranty appeal.

The builder subsequently refused to pay her portion of the settlement.

The respondent brought a motion requesting the Tribunal to order the builder to comply with the settlement agreement.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to order the builder to pay the settlement amount or to enforce the agreement.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his commercial vehicle after his employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to properly check the employee's licence, which had been suspended since 2005.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant was able to rent a replacement vehicle and his business would continue despite the financial loss.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal substituted its opinion for that of the Registrar and ordered that the appellant comply with the Act and regulations, be employed exclusively within the 'New and Used Motor Vehicles' class for two years, and be subject to various restrictions on his role and authority within a dealership for three years.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Registrar argued the appellant's financial position and past conduct disentitled him to registration.

The Tribunal found the appellant's financial position was sufficient for his modest business plan.

However, the Tribunal found the appellant's past conduct, which included two bankruptcies and unpaid customers from a previous dealership, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar's Notice was confirmed.

The Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards proposed to refuse the appellant's application to register a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS) and to refuse her husband's registration as a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station Mechanic (MVIM).

The Director argued the appellant was merely resurrecting her husband's former business, which had numerous convictions for failing to submit required paperwork.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant would be the sole owner and manager of the new business and would handle all administrative duties, while her husband would only perform inspections.

The Tribunal directed the Director to refrain from carrying out the proposal and to issue the registrations, subject to a condition requiring quarterly reporting meetings for the first year.

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

The suspension was initiated after the appellant's neurologist submitted a mandatory report indicating the appellant suffered from cognitive impairment.

The Ministry of Transportation required the appellant to undergo a driving assessment, during which an occupational therapist concluded he was unsafe to drive and not a candidate for remedial training.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the suspension of his driver's licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

The suspension was based on an unsolicited medical report from his psychiatrist indicating an anxiety disorder following a hospital admission.

The Tribunal found that the appellant suffered from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, noting his lack of insight into his condition, discontinuation of medication, and failure to provide an updated medical assessment as requested.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

The appellant's rental vehicle was impounded after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that his staff exercised due diligence in checking the driver's licence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle and would not suffer significant and lasting economic loss.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the appellant's staff failed to check the driver's licence, demonstrating a lack of due diligence.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing their claim for alleged structural defects in their new home.

At the hearing, the self-represented appellant brought a motion for the adjudicator to recuse herself, alleging bias, which was dismissed for lack of evidence.

On the merits, the appellants failed to provide any evidence to support their claims of structural defects.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of a structural engineer retained by Tarion, who confirmed the home was built in accordance with the Ontario Building Code and that all issues had been remediated.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's Notice of Proposed Order to refuse to renew his horse groomer/owner licence.

The Registrar refused the renewal on the basis that the appellant failed to disclose over 60 Highway Traffic Act convictions and over 80 driver's licence suspensions on his application, and had a history of unpaid debts.

The Tribunal found that the appellant knowingly withheld information on his application and that his past conduct, including repeated traffic offences and failure to repay hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans, demonstrated a lack of integrity, honesty, and willingness to act in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to refuse the licence renewal.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its establishment.

A local resident and a city councillor objected, prompting the Registrar to issue a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

The appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

Neither objector attended the hearing, and the resident emailed stating he no longer wished to participate.

As the appellant met the criteria for a licence and the objectors abandoned their claims, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to issue the liquor licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after she lent it to her daughter, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued exceptional hardship and due diligence.

The Tribunal found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternative transportation options.

However, the Tribunal found the appellant exercised due diligence by asking her daughter if she had her licence before lending the car, noting it is unreasonable to expect parents to independently verify their children's licence status with the government.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle ordered released.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal the impoundment of his commercial motor vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant, whose licence was subject to an ignition interlock condition, was found operating it without a breath testing kit.

The Tribunal applied the factors for extending time and found that while the appellant did not demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was short, there was no prejudice to the respondent, and the appeal had some merit based on potential exceptional hardship.

The motion to extend time was granted.

The appellant, a school bus driver, appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial class driver's licence to a Class G licence following two episodes of syncope (loss of consciousness).

Although the appellant's doctors opined he was fit to drive, the Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, which require a 12-month symptom-free period for atypical syncope.

The Tribunal found the appellant lacked insight into the seriousness of his condition and confirmed the Ministry's decision to downgrade the licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after she lent it to her boyfriend, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by asking to see his licence before allowing him to drive and was unaware of his suspension.

The Tribunal found the appellant to be a credible witness and concluded she had exercised due diligence in the circumstances.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after her son lent it to a friend who had a suspended licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the appellant did not demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit and that the appeal lacked merit, as the appellant had alternative transportation and could not establish exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after she lent it to her boyfriend whose licence was suspended.

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship by impeding her ability to commute to work and attend prenatal medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternative methods of transportation and therefore did not meet the regulatory criteria for exceptional hardship.