Douglas Lee

The appellant appealed the Director's proposal to refuse his application for a motor vehicle inspection station (MVIS) licence and registration as a motor vehicle inspection mechanic.

The appellant's previous licence and registration were revoked in 2015 due to issuing improper safety certificates, which the Tribunal had found was due to a lack of knowledge rather than dishonesty.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had since taken adequate steps to educate himself on the new regulations and rust-related safety issues.

The Tribunal concluded that the Director did not have reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act in accordance with the law, honesty, integrity, and competence, and ordered the Director to refrain from carrying out the proposal.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his motor vehicle inspection station (MVIS) licence.

The Director alleged the appellant made false statements on his application and breached the Highway Traffic Act during operations.

The Tribunal found that the appellant submitted a fabricated zoning letter, forged his mechanic's signature on the application and numerous inspection certificates, and failed to maintain required records.

Concluding that the appellant was indifferent to his statutory obligations and posed a risk to public safety, the Tribunal directed the Director to carry out the revocation.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's service provider licence for failing to file an annual information return and pay the related fee.

The applicant requested a hearing but failed to attend the scheduled pre-hearing conference.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the proceeding.

After considering the applicant's written submissions, which cited personal complications but provided no explanation for missing the conference, the Tribunal allowed the proceeding to continue subject to strict conditions regarding future attendance and compliance.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the service provider licence of the respondent.

The respondent filed a Request for Hearing with the Financial Services Tribunal beyond the 15-day statutory deadline.

The Superintendent brought a motion to dismiss the hearing request for lack of jurisdiction due to the late filing.

The Tribunal found that the request was filed late, the statutory deadline was not met, and the Superintendent did not consent to waive the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing and dismissed the request.

The applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, failed to respond to a mandatory online market conduct questionnaire issued by the Superintendent of Financial Services, despite multiple reminders and deadline extensions.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty.

Following a hearing, the Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant negligently failed to comply with her statutory duty to provide requested information.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and directed the Superintendent to impose the $1,000 penalty.

The Applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, failed to maintain errors and omissions (E&O) insurance for approximately 10.5 months after leaving the industry without formally surrendering his licence.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty (AMP) of $1,800.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Applicant contravened the E&O requirement and that an AMP was appropriate to promote compliance.

However, considering the Applicant's negligence rather than intentional misconduct, the minimal potential harm, and the modest economic benefit derived, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to $1,000.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty against a life insurance agent for failing to respond to a mandatory market conduct questionnaire.

The agent requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while the agent breached the Insurance Act by failing to respond, imposing the penalty was not appropriate due to the agent's extreme personal and family hardships at the time, including the severe illness and frequent hospitalization of his infant son.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent not to carry out the proposal.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose administrative monetary penalties totaling $2,000 on a mortgage brokerage for failing to disclose the number of lenders it represented and for improperly paying a commission to a broker affiliated with another brokerage.

The brokerage requested a hearing, conceding the contraventions but arguing the proposed penalties were excessive.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the contraventions resulted from negligence and that the penalties were appropriate for general and specific deterrence.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose the $2,000 penalty.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to impose administrative monetary penalties totalling $5,500 on the applicant mortgage brokerage for seven contraventions of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006 and its regulations.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal, admitting the contraventions but arguing the penalties were excessive due to personal circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the penalties were appropriate to promote general and specific deterrence and that the applicant's personal circumstances did not excuse the failure to comply with strict regulatory requirements.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose the $5,500 penalties.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed attendant care and housekeeping benefits for services provided by his former wife, daughter, and a lawn care company.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the caregivers did not sustain an 'economic loss' as required by s. 3(7)(e) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

A FSCO arbitrator and Director's Delegate upheld the denial, finding that mere loss of time did not constitute an economic loss.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness, despite the concurrent jurisdiction of courts and arbitrators under the Insurance Act, and found the Delegate's interpretation of 'economic loss' as requiring a financial or pecuniary loss to be reasonable.

The applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to review a Notice of Proposal by the Superintendent of Financial Services to impose a $1,500 administrative monetary penalty.

The penalty was proposed because the applicant failed to maintain errors and omissions insurance for over a year while licensed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant intentionally failed to maintain the required coverage and derived an economic benefit from unpaid premiums.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to carry out the proposal and impose the $1,500 penalty.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of its commercial trailer under section 50.3 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trailer was impounded after an inspection revealed a severed air hose, resulting in more than 50% of the trailer brakes being inoperative.

The applicant argued the failure was accidental due to extreme cold weather making the hose brittle.

The Tribunal distinguished a previous case involving a loose glad hand, noting that here there was an actual component failure and no evidence was provided regarding the applicant's maintenance of air hoses for cold weather conditions.

The Tribunal concluded the trailer had a critical defect at the time of inspection and confirmed the impoundment.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle under section 50.3 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after an inspection revealed that four of the six brakes on the tractor unit were out of adjustment, constituting a critical defect.

The applicant argued that the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) standards should apply and that the tractor and trailer should be considered as one vehicle with ten brakes, meaning less than 50% were defective.

The Tribunal rejected these arguments, finding no evidence that federal law or CVSA standards displaced the provincial regulatory scheme.

The Tribunal also held that under section 82.1(6) of the Act, the tractor and trailer are treated as separate vehicles.

Since four of the tractor's six brakes were defective, the 50% threshold was met.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The Applicant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles revoking his Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR).

The Registrar argued that the Applicant was a front for a revoked operator, Brent Groh, and that they were related persons under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant and Groh were not related persons, as Groh did not control or manage the safety aspects of the Applicant's operation.

Given the Applicant's excellent safety record, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar not to carry out the cancellation and seizure order.

The applicant, a bus operator, appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspending its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate for seven days.

The Ministry of Transportation had identified an unacceptable safety record, including failed facility audits, lack of records, and multiple collisions involving the applicant's drivers.

The applicant argued it had taken steps to improve its safety record, but the Tribunal found the applicant's efforts, which included plagiarizing a maintenance manual, were insufficient and disorganized.

The Tribunal upheld the Registrar's decision, finding on a balance of probabilities that the applicant would not operate commercial vehicles safely, and ordered the seven-day suspension and seizure of plates.

The appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision directing the revocation of their motor vehicle inspection station and mechanic registrations.

They argued the Tribunal erred in weighing historical allegations and denied procedural fairness through undue interference during the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably considered the appellants' entire course of conduct, including 22 recent allegations of malfeasance, and that the Tribunal's interventions to clarify technical evidence did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant appealed the Registrar's refusal to issue a Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR).

The Registrar refused the application on the basis that one of the applicant's directors was allegedly related to another company with a suspended CVOR due to unpaid fines.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that the director was actually related to the suspended company, accepting testimony that his name was added to corporate records in error.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the refusal.

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 Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent Michael Tsapoitis on a charge of driving an unsafe vehicle under section 84(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and the acquittal of Ontario Line Clearing and Tree Services Ltd. on a "wheel-off" offence under section 84.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial justice found that a wood chipper being towed behind a commercial motor vehicle was not a "vehicle" within the meaning of the Act.

The appellate court reversed, holding that a purposive interpretation of the statutory definition of "vehicle" should apply, and that the wood chipper constituted a vehicle.

The court ordered new trials rather than entering convictions.

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

The Registrar's order was based on the applicant's poor safety record and its relationship to another company with a poor safety record.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was related to the other company and that their combined safety records provided reason to believe the applicant would not operate safely.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the cancellation and seizure order.