Jay Blair

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse to renew their licences as a Funeral Director and Funeral Establishment Operator.

The Registrar alleged that the appellants engaged in unauthorized embalming, provided false information on licensure applications, failed to maintain a place of business, and could not be expected to be financially responsible.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established the bulk of its allegations, including that the appellants repeatedly embalmed deceased persons without authorization, falsified a contract, provided false information on annual licensure reports, and failed to maintain a business premises.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to revoke the registrations.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse to renew her licence as a Funeral Director Class 1.

The Registrar argued that the appellant's recent criminal conviction for fraud and misappropriation of funds from a youth soccer club provided reasonable grounds for belief that she would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar satisfied its onus, noting that funeral directors handle client funds and the appellant's past conduct involved crimes of dishonesty.

The Tribunal concluded that conditions would not sufficiently protect the public and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse to renew the licence.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, based on allegations of past conduct and false statements.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered the revocation of the appellant's registration, with the condition that he may apply for reinstatement after one year, provided he completes an anger management program, mandatory continuing education, and provides a criminal record check.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the registration of the appellants as a brokerage and broker of record under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, alleging the individual appellant made a false statement by failing to disclose an outstanding judgment and lacked financial responsibility due to outstanding debts to the CRA and a private creditor.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant did not knowingly make a false statement, as he reasonably believed the private debt was being addressed.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant's debts were moderate, he had made consistent efforts to pay them, and his education and experience demonstrated he could be financially responsible.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to grant the registrations subject to conditions regarding debt repayment and reporting.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse her registration as a real estate salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The Registrar argued the appellant was disentitled to registration due to financial irresponsibility, past conduct lacking integrity and honesty, and false statements on her application.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's history of unpaid rent, reliance on others for living expenses, past provincial offences convictions related to her real estate practice, and failure to disclose a consumer proposal and full conviction details on her application justified the refusal.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar's proposal to refuse registration was carried out.

The Appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar cited the Appellant's history of bankruptcy, outstanding judgments, multiple disciplinary findings by RECO for unethical conduct, criminal convictions for violating the Act, and providing false information on renewal applications.

The Tribunal found the Appellant's conduct demonstrated a shocking lack of integrity and financial responsibility.

Applying the Tulloch factors, the Tribunal concluded that conditional registration would not adequately protect the public and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The appellant, a real estate broker facing revocation of his registration, brought a motion to exclude evidence of his prior criminal conviction for sexual assault and findings from his divorce proceedings.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that the criminal judgments were admissible under section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, as they constituted judicially determined facts rather than mere summaries of previously admitted evidence.

The family court findings were admitted for the limited purpose of explaining the Registrar's investigation narrative.

The Registrar's cross-motion to admit pleadings and financial statements from those proceedings as public documents was dismissed.

The Appellant brought a motion for the reinstatement of his real estate salesperson registration pending his appeal of a licence revocation, and for full disclosure of documents by the Registrar.

The Tribunal dismissed the reinstatement request, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the issue had already been decided by another Vice-Chair.

However, applying the principles of procedural fairness from Stinchcombe, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to provide full disclosure of all communications with complainants and clients, as well as the complete investigation file.

The applicant, a real estate salesperson, brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal of the Registrar's proposal to revoke his registration.

The applicant missed the 15-day deadline by four days, citing personal chaos and a failure to open couriered mail.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time, finding that the prejudice to the applicant of losing his livelihood without a hearing outweighed the marginal explanation for the delay.

However, given the applicant's history of misconduct and outstanding penalties, the Tribunal ordered the immediate suspension of his registration pending the hearing to protect the public interest.