John Randolph Park

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a travel retailer under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, citing financial concerns and past conduct.

The parties waived a hearing and agreed to a consent order continuing the registration subject to strict conditions, including timely filing of financial statements, responding to Registrar requests, and maintaining positive working capital by a specified deadline.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of the appellant travel agency under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed the proposal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the past conduct of the appellant's sole officer and director, which included falsifying airline booking documents, mishandling consumer trust funds, and failing to cooperate with a TICO inspector, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal concluded that conditions would not sufficiently protect the public and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a travel agent under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, alleging failures to submit financial statements and required forms.

The parties resolved the issues and consented to the continued registration of the appellant subject to specific conditions, including timely filing of future statements and completion of educational webinars.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, ordering the registration continued on the agreed terms.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that dismissed his eight complaints of discrimination and declared him a vexatious litigant.

The complaints primarily alleged discrimination based on ancestry and place of origin due to poor customer service.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Tribunal's dismissal of the complaints was reasonable as they were frivolous on their face.

The court also held that the Tribunal's process was procedurally fair and its declaration of the applicant as a vexatious litigant was justified given his history of bringing multiple meritless proceedings.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its registration as a travel agent under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, which was issued due to a failure to submit financial statements.

The parties resolved the issues and consented to an order continuing the appellant's registration subject to conditions, including timely filing of financial statements and responding to requests from the Registrar.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) denying her claim for reimbursement from the Travel Compensation Fund.

The appellant had paid $2,630 for airfare, but the travel agency went bankrupt.

She filed her claim with TICO four months after the six-month statutory deadline had expired.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that section 60(2) of O. Reg. 26/05 is unambiguous and neither TICO nor the Tribunal has the authority to override the statutory time limit.

The appeal was dismissed and the claim was refused.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Travel Industry Council of Ontario denying her claim for compensation from the Travel Industry Compensation Fund.

The claim was initially denied because the funds were paid to an unregistered company.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing and did not request an adjournment.

As the appellant bore the onus of proving eligibility for reimbursement and presented no evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and refused the claim.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's travel agent registration due to repeated failures to comply with conditions imposed in 2016 and a long-standing pattern of non-compliance.

The appellant had repeatedly failed to file required financial information, maintain minimum working capital, and respond to the Registrar's inquiries, including those related to consumer complaints.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant breached the conditions of its registration and that its past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe it would not carry on business in accordance with the law.

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

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a travel agency under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The parties reached a resolution and executed Minutes of Settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a Consent Order continuing the appellant's registration subject to the conditions set out in the Minutes of Settlement, and the appeal was withdrawn.

The appellant sought $6,061.48 from the Travel Compensation Fund after his airline ceased operations, leaving him and his family stranded in Kosovo.

TICO reimbursed $1,180, representing the unused return portion of the tickets not already refunded by the appellant's credit card.

The appellant appealed, seeking the full cost of the original round-trip tickets and the replacement tickets.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that under Ontario Regulation 26/05, the Fund only covers travel services paid for but not provided, and expressly excludes reimbursement for alternate travel services, consequential damages, or amounts already reimbursed by a credit card.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's funeral pre-planner licence, alleging she mismanaged client funds by accepting e-transfers into her personal account and using one client's credit card to pay another's account.

The appellant appealed the proposal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant's actions were deficient and ill-advised, there was no evidence of deceit, misappropriation for personal benefit, or harm to clients.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the revocation.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse her registration as a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant had engaged in the sale of motor vehicles while unregistered and had participated in deceptive and dishonest sales practices, including failing to disclose a vehicle's accident history and being involved in obtaining a fraudulent safety certificate.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the Appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The accused was sentenced following conviction for four counts of fraud over $5,000 arising from two real estate transactions involving straw purchasers and fraudulent mortgage documentation.

Financial institutions and an insurer suffered losses exceeding $267,000.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for large-scale fraud, rejecting a conditional sentence despite the offender’s lack of criminal record and health issues.

Delay between the offences and sentencing and the offender’s medical condition reduced the sentence from a potential penitentiary term.

The court imposed a custodial sentence, restitution under s. 738 of the Criminal Code, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture under s. 462.37.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for a proposed pub.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents concerned about noise and unruly behaviour, citing issues with a previous establishment at the same location.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to demonstrate that granting the licence would be contrary to the public interest, noting the applicant's plans to renovate the premises and operate a professionally run establishment.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions prohibiting amplified music on the patio and requiring security on weekend evenings.

The accused was charged with four counts of fraud over $5,000 arising from two real estate transactions involving Toronto properties.

The Crown alleged the accused orchestrated mortgage fraud schemes using straw purchasers and falsified financial documentation to obtain mortgage funds from a bank, which were insured by a federal housing corporation.

The court found that the purchasers lacked the financial means to service the mortgages and that fraudulent employment and financial documents were submitted to secure financing.

Evidence demonstrated that the accused directed the transactions, received substantial proceeds from the mortgage funds, and facilitated the discharge of existing mortgages on the properties.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly participated in and benefited from the fraudulent schemes.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the respondent for allegedly permitting a minor to consume liquor on the premises, contrary to section 30(4) of the Liquor Licence Act.

At the hearing, the parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding that the licensee breached the Act, and ordered a five-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario proposed to suspend the liquor licence of the corporate licensee for permitting drunkenness on the licensed premises.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a six-day suspension of the liquor licence.