Madhavi Gupta

The Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority brought a motion to determine the procedure for an appeal of an Administrative Penalty Order (APO) issued to the appellant under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The Registrar argued the appeal should proceed on the record rather than as a de novo hearing.

The Tribunal conducted a statutory interpretation of the Act and concluded that the legislative scheme, which includes a robust first-instance process by the assessor, intends for the Tribunal to conduct an appeal on the record.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeal proceed as an appeal on the record.

The appellant appealed an administrative penalty order (APO) of $315,925.50 issued under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017 for offering to sell and selling new homes without a licence and without home warranty enrolment.

The appellant argued the assessor's calculation of the monetary benefit amount was unreasonable because it divided land acquisition costs between sold and unsold subdivided lots, rather than attributing the full cost to the first sold lot.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the assessor's purposive approach to calculating the monetary benefit and base penalty was reasonable and aligned with the consumer protection objectives of the legislation.

In a CCAA proceeding involving a substantially completed condominium development, the Applicant sought orders approving a Unit Sale Process for unsold units, a Construction Lien Claims Process, and ancillary relief including a stay extension and DIP facility increase.

The Court granted the orders, sealing the Target Price List for the unsold units to protect commercial sensitivity, and staying a regulatory proceeding by the Home Construction Regulatory Authority to revoke the Applicant's license, finding the license essential to the restructuring and sale process.

The appellant real estate brokerage appealed an Administrative Penalty Order (APO) issued by the HCRA for failing to produce a complete trade file, specifically a for-sale MLS listing, during the execution of a search warrant.

The Tribunal found that the HCRA was reasonable in determining that the appellant contravened the Act by failing to produce the required information.

However, the Tribunal found the penalty amount of $3,913.04 to be unreasonable, as the contravention had a lower impact on the investigation than assessed by the HCRA.

The Tribunal varied the penalty amount to $978.26.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar to refuse the renewal of the licence of Sunrise Barrie and to revoke the licences of Sunrise Patterson and Sunrise Homes.

The Registrar argued the appellants were ineligible due to past financial misconduct and receiverships of associated corporations.

The Tribunal found that Sunrise Patterson and Sunrise Homes could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke their licences.

However, the Tribunal found that Sunrise Barrie, having been taken over by an equity partner that stabilized its finances and brought it into compliance, could reasonably be expected to be financially responsible.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to renew Sunrise Barrie's licence subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed administrative penalty orders issued by the Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority for selling a new home without a licence.

The appellants purchased a pre-construction home, took possession, and listed it for sale within days without ever occupying it.

The Tribunal found the appellants acted as unlicensed vendors in contravention of the New Home Construction Licencing Act, 2017.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' arguments that the investigation was procedurally unfair and violated their Charter rights.

However, the Tribunal varied the administrative penalty from $99,150.77 to $66,492.13 per appellant to account for additional costs incurred during the sale.

The appellants appealed administrative penalty orders (APOs) issued by the Home Construction Regulatory Authority for selling a new home without a vendor licence, contrary to s. 37(1) of the New Home Construction Licensing Act.

The appellants argued they had previously occupied the home for two nights, exempting them from the licensing requirement.

The Tribunal found the brief stay did not meet the legal threshold for residency, rendering them unlicensed vendors.

The Tribunal upheld the APOs but varied the penalty amounts from $122,072.25 to $88,975.86 each to account for carrying costs and improvements made to the property.

The appellant filed a motion seeking an extension of time to appeal an administrative penalty order issued by the Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority.

The appellant missed the 15-day appeal deadline by 12 days, citing his counsel's family emergency.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test from Manuel and found no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, unexplained additional delay by counsel, and no reasonable chance of success on the merits, as the appellant admittedly sold a new home without a vendor licence.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Darien Aggregates Inc. brought a motion to determine whether an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment by North Shore Environmental Resource Advocates Inc. was moot.

The zoning by-law amendment permitted a new quarry on Crown land.

Darien argued that under s. 34(9) of the Aggregate Resources Act, a zoning by-law cannot prohibit or regulate the establishment of a quarry on Crown land, rendering the appeal moot.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the outcome of the appeal would have no practical effect on the Ministry's ability to issue an aggregate permit.

The Tribunal also held that municipal by-laws cannot regulate the operation of quarries on Crown land.

The motion was allowed and the appeal was dismissed.