Zahra Dhanani

The appellant appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The appellant failed to provide disclosure, failed to attend a scheduled case conference, and lost contact with its counsel.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, to which the appellant did not respond.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had abandoned its appeal and dismissed the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant sold his vehicle to a purchaser but allowed her to drive it away with his licence plates still attached.

The purchaser, whose driver's licence was suspended, failed to return the plates or transfer ownership, and the vehicle was subsequently impounded by police.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment, arguing the vehicle was stolen because his plates were stolen, and claiming exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant remained the registered owner, the vehicle was not stolen as it was taken with consent, and there was no exceptional hardship because the appellant had another vehicle for his own transportation needs.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded because it was operated by a driver with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal late and brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant retrieved her car and intended to withdraw the motion, but did not clearly communicate this to the Tribunal.

At the hearing, the appellant confirmed she wished to withdraw her motion.

The Tribunal concluded the proceedings and closed the file.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a friend with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that while the impoundment caused inconvenience and financial strain, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had access to public transportation as an alternative.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment order confirmed.

The appellants, owners of a karaoke bar, brought a motion to adjourn their hearing regarding the refusal to renew and transfer a liquor sales licence.

The appellants argued they needed more time to prepare.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding the appellants had sufficient time to prepare since filing their appeal six months prior and retaining a representative two months prior.

The Tribunal also noted that granting an adjournment would seriously prejudice the respondent, as a key witness would be unavailable after April 2018.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to downgrade his commercial class driver's licence following a seizure caused by a brain tumor.

The appellant underwent successful surgery and treatment, and his neurologist provided evidence that he was at very low risk for future seizures.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's medical condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial class vehicle safely and set aside the Registrar's decision.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration as a debt collector under the Collection and Debt Settlement Services Act.

The Registrar refused the application because the appellant failed to disclose outstanding criminal charges on his application form.

The Tribunal found that the appellant made an unintentional mistake on the application and did not knowingly provide false information.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the alleged criminal conduct occurred.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to grant the registration, subject to a condition that the appellant immediately disclose any future conviction on the outstanding charges.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial class driver's licence to a general Class 'G' licence due to the presence of an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD).

The appellant had undergone quadruple bypass surgery and the ICD was implanted for secondary protection, but his cardiologist and family doctor confirmed it was no longer medically required and had never fired.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence from the appellant's treating physicians more compelling than the Ministry's reviewing doctor.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's medical condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and set aside the Minister's decision.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles after he voluntarily admitted himself to a hospital for alcohol dependence.

The appellant appealed the suspension.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had abstained from alcohol for over six months, completed treatment programs, and had the support of his doctors and family.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's alcohol addiction was no longer likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant's truck was impounded for 45 days after his nephew was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the truck had been stolen by his nephew.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence not credible, noting the nephew had frequent access to the truck and a history of driving the appellant's vehicles, resulting in previous impoundments.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was not stolen and confirmed the Registrar's decision to impound the truck.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her husband drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had taken reasonable steps to prevent her husband from driving the vehicle, including hiding the spare keys while she was out of town.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was taken without the appellant's consent and was therefore stolen within the meaning of the Act.

The Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant police officer appealed his conviction for insubordination after discharging his firearm at a fleeing vehicle, contrary to a Toronto Police Service procedure.

The appellant argued he had a lawful excuse due to an honest, subjective belief that his life was in imminent danger.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that a lawful excuse requires both a subjective belief and objectively reasonable actions.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's finding that the appellant's actions were not objectively reasonable, as he had removed himself from the imminent threat before firing.

The appellant appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing misconduct charges against two police officers for allegedly making an unlawful arrest during the G20 Summit.

The appellant had been arrested for wearing a disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence after officers observed him wearing an orange bandana over his face.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the charges based entirely on finding the appellant not credible, without analyzing the legal elements of a lawful arrest under the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found the Hearing Officer's reasons inadequate, as they failed to address whether the officers had subjective and objective reasonable grounds for the arrest.

The Commission allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing before a different Hearing Officer.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision dismissing her from the Windsor Police Service after she was found guilty of deceit and discreditable conduct.

The misconduct stemmed from an incident where the appellant failed to declare alcohol at the US-Canada border, repeatedly lied to border officers, and subsequently sought to use her position to exact revenge on the border officers.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, finding that the appellant's consistent pattern of deceit, lack of remorse, and retaliatory conduct outweighed her positive employment history and irreparably damaged her ability to function as a police officer and the reputation of the police service.

The Chief of Police pled guilty to discreditable conduct after cancelling two Provincial Offence Notices issued to a city councillor for running a red light and failing to produce valid insurance.

The Chief cancelled the tickets without consulting the issuing officer or following proper procedures.

The Commission determined that the conduct undermined the rule of law and the fair administration of justice.

Balancing the Chief's exemplary employment record against the need for general deterrence, the Commission ordered a penalty of forfeiture of 5 days of work or 40 hours of pay.

Following a finding of misconduct against Mayor Daryl Bennett for his actions as a member of the Peterborough Lakefield Police Services Board, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission determined the appropriate penalty.

The Commission rejected the argument that it lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty due to the disbandment of the Board, finding that a liberal interpretation of the Police Services Act required accountability for past conduct to maintain public confidence.

Given the severity of the misconduct, which included undermining the Board and the Chief of Police, and the lack of remorse, the Commission ordered that Mayor Bennett be removed from the Board.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a hearing into the conduct of Chief John Gauthier of the Timmins Police Service.

The investigation concerned the Chief's decision to cancel Provincial Offence Notices issued to a city councillor for a red light infraction and failing to produce valid insurance.

Chief Gauthier pled guilty to the amended allegation of acting in a manner likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Service.

The Commission accepted the guilty plea, found him guilty of discreditable conduct, and adjourned the matter to hear evidence and submissions regarding penalty.

The Durham Regional Police Association and the Senior Officers' Association applied to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission to determine whether a Durham College employee, seconded to the Durham Regional Police Service as Dean of the Police Education and Innovation Centre, was an employee of the Service and thus a member of the Senior Officers' Association.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the clear language of the secondment agreement established the individual remained an employee of the College, despite performing senior leadership duties at the Service.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary penalty of dismissal (seven days to resign or be terminated) imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of Insubordination, two counts of Discreditable Conduct, and one count of Breach of Confidence.

The misconduct involved unauthorized access to police databases to obtain confidential information about an acquaintance's criminal investigation and sharing that information with a civilian.

The officer was also convicted criminally of Breach of Trust by a Public Official.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding the Hearing Officer's decision on penalty was reasonable, properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and was proportional to the egregious nature of the misconduct.

Chief Gauthier, charged with discreditable conduct for allegedly withdrawing traffic tickets issued to a city councillor, brought a motion for further disclosure and particulars from the Ontario Civilian Police Commission.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the administrative law standard for disclosure had been met.

The Notice of Hearing, combined with the 48-page investigative report and extensive evidentiary disclosure, provided sufficient particulars for the Chief to know the case he had to meet.

The Commission is not required to provide its legal strategy, research, or point to the exact pieces of evidence it intends to rely upon at the hearing.