Anthony Debly

The defendants were charged with selling improperly packaged vapour products contrary to the Smoke Free Ontario Act after an undercover enforcement officer purchased a vape containing 5% nicotine.

The court found the products were improperly packaged as they exceeded the 2% nicotine limit, lacked federal and provincial duty-paid stamps, and lacked Health Canada warnings.

The court rejected the defendants' explanation of how the products were acquired and held that the defence of entrapment is not available for bona fide regulatory test shopping.

Both defendants were found guilty.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to recall and cancel her personalized licence plate under s. 12(2) of the Highway Traffic Act for containing or implying political opinions.

The Registrar brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Act does not assign it authority to hear appeals of decisions made under s. 12(2), as its jurisdiction is limited to specific sections that do not include s. 12.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's refusal to issue him a commercial driver's licence due to his failure to meet minimum vision standards.

The Tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was an 'applicant' under section 32(5)(a) rather than a 'holder' under section 32(5)(b), and that the regulations only prescribe a right of appeal for decisions made under section 32(5)(b)(i).

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its plates due to a poor safety record.

The appellant's operations manager had a history of managing other companies with cancelled or refused CVORs and outstanding fines.

Despite the appellant's recent hiring of a safety consultant, the Tribunal found the appellant had a pattern of poor safety and little demonstrated action to improve.

The Tribunal concluded there was reason to believe the appellant would not operate safely and ordered the Registrar to carry out the cancellation and seizure.

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

The trailer was impounded after an inspection revealed a critical defect with the brakes.

The applicant argued that the inspecting officer failed to follow statutory procedures and exceeded his authority by ordering repairs before towing.

The Tribunal found that the officer complied with the statutory requirements for detaining the vehicle.

The Tribunal held that its jurisdiction is limited to determining whether a critical defect existed at the time of inspection, which was undisputed, and confirmed the impoundment.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario proposed to suspend the liquor licence of Club T'Zers following a severe motor vehicle accident involving two patrons.

The Registrar alleged that the licensee permitted drunkenness and served liquor to intoxicated persons.

The Board found that the two patrons were highly intoxicated when they entered the establishment and that the staff knew they were intoxicated but allowed them to remain for 20 to 30 minutes before ejecting them after an altercation.

The Board concluded that the licensee permitted drunkenness contrary to subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

However, the Board dismissed the allegation under section 29 of the Liquor Licence Act, finding insufficient evidence that the patrons were actually served or supplied with liquor while on the premises.