Jillian Siskind

The Law Society of Ontario brought a motion for an interlocutory suspension of the respondent paralegal's licence, alleging misappropriation of trust funds and breach of integrity.

The investigator identified over $100,000 in unexplained transfers from the respondent's trust accounts to his general account, supported by invoices that the clients claimed they never received.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the respondent may have misappropriated or misapplied monies held in trust.

Given the serious integrity issues, the Tribunal concluded that restrictions would be insufficient to protect the public and ordered an immediate interlocutory suspension.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority brought a motion to stay an order of the Financial Services Tribunal pending an appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal had previously ordered the CEO to issue an insurance agent licence to the responding party on conditions, despite a Notice of Proposal to refuse the licence.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found there was a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the public interest if the stay was not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the regulator.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The appellants, a motor vehicle salesperson and a motor vehicle dealer, appealed a Tribunal decision directing the revocation of their registrations to the Divisional Court.

They brought a motion before the Tribunal for a stay of the revocation decision pending the outcome of their appeal.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the appellants failed to establish irreparable harm, as their anticipated financial losses and business closure could be quantified in monetary terms.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay, as the public interest in consumer protection outweighed the appellants' private commercial interests, given their history of non-compliance with registration conditions.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its principal, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The appellants brought a preliminary motion seeking a stay of proceedings due to the Registrar's late disclosure of documents, which the Tribunal dismissed, finding that an adjournment cured any procedural unfairness.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the appellants breached multiple conditions of their registrations, including trading in motor vehicles before completing a required certification course and failing to disclose material facts about a vehicle's pre-existing engine defect to a purchaser.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with law, integrity, and honesty.

Finding that the appellants had a history of non-compliance and could not be relied upon to adhere to conditions, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out its proposal to revoke the registrations.

The appellants sought a stay of a Licence Appeal Tribunal order revoking their motor vehicle dealer and salesperson registrations pending their appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal applied the RJR-MacDonald test for granting a stay.

While finding there was a serious issue to be tried, the Tribunal concluded the appellants did not demonstrate significant irreparable harm.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured refusing the stay, as the public interest in protection from the appellants' pattern of providing false information outweighed the financial harm the appellants would suffer.

The motion for a stay was denied.

The appellants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that directed the Registrar to revoke their motor vehicle dealer and salesperson registrations.

The appellants argued the Tribunal made factual errors regarding the employment restrictions of a former manager who had forged signatures.

The Tribunal acknowledged minor factual errors regarding the manager's registration status but found these errors were not determinative.

The original decision to revoke the registrations was well-supported by other evidence, including the appellant's reckless disregard for the forgeries and his admission to providing false information on ten separate registration renewal applications.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as motor vehicle dealers and salespersons, and to refuse a new corporate registration.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the business manager forging signatures on bills of sale and the principal's repeated failure to disclose an Environmental Protection Act conviction on renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the principal's past conduct, including his failure to provide adequate oversight, his disregard for employment restrictions placed on the business manager, and his repeated false statements to the regulator, afforded reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal.

The appellant, Dellfina Homes Inc., appealed a proposal by the Registrar under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to refuse its registration as a builder.

The Registrar's refusal was based on the appellant's failure to provide a requested security deposit and the past conduct of its principal, John Custodio, which included acting as an unregistered builder and failing to enroll homes.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant could reasonably be expected to be financially responsible, the past conduct of its principal afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant would not carry on its undertakings in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The Applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claims regarding a new home purchased from the Added Party.

The claims involved noise transmission through a party wall, squeaky stairs, and mould stains in the basement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the party wall met the Ontario Building Code's sound transmission standards, there was no evidence of a defect in the stairs, and the mould stains did not constitute a warrantable defect.

The Tribunal also dismissed the Applicant's claims for secondary damages and human rights violations, noting that secondary damages are excluded under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and there was no evidence of discrimination.

The applicants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying in part their claim regarding a new home purchased from the added party.

Following a discussion of the remaining issue, the parties reached an agreement to resolve the matter.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal directed the appeal to be withdrawn.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing their claim for a sewer smell in their new home's main bathroom sink.

The applicants alleged the smell was due to a defect in materials or workmanship.

The Tribunal accepted expert plumbing evidence that the plumbing was in proper condition, the debris in the trap was normal, and the smell could be resolved through regular homeowner maintenance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.