Michael Hassell

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's liquor sales licence for permitting unlawful gaming on the premises.

The Tribunal previously found the appellant in breach of the regulation.

On the issue of sanction, the Registrar sought revocation or a 30 to 40-day suspension, while the appellant argued for a 7-day suspension.

The Tribunal ordered a 21-day suspension and added a condition prohibiting gaming machines on the premises, balancing the need for deterrence with the appellant's limited disciplinary history.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's liquor licence, alleging the appellant permitted unlawful gambling and served alcohol outside prescribed hours.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the presence of casino-style gaming machines with kill switches and reset buttons in a back room, along with video evidence of their use, established on a balance of probabilities that unlawful gambling was permitted.

However, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to prove alcohol was served outside prescribed hours, accepting the appellant's testimony that the bottles contained non-alcoholic flavourings.

The Tribunal found a breach of s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 but no breach of s. 25(1), and requested written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract and bad faith after terminating a lease and selling its dry cleaning business back to the defendant for $35,000.

The plaintiff argued it had been deceived into relinquishing its right of first refusal under the lease because the defendant falsely represented an intention to operate the business personally, but then resold it shortly afterward to a third party for $225,000.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendant misrepresented its intentions or breached a duty of good faith during negotiations.

Evidence from an independent purchaser supported the defendant’s explanation that the subsequent sale arose opportunistically after the lease ended.

Although the court commented that damages could have been approximately $175,000–$190,000 if liability were established, the claim was dismissed.

Secured creditors sought the appointment of a receiver over a debtor company pursuant to s. 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act following repeated loan defaults and concerns that assets might be removed from the premises.

Evidence indicated ongoing payment defaults and recent activity suggesting potential removal of items from the business location.

The respondent acknowledged default but requested a short period to obtain refinancing sufficient to satisfy secured creditors.

The court concluded that supervision was necessary to protect the debtor’s assets and the secured creditors’ interests.

An interim receiver with limited monitoring powers was appointed pending a further hearing on whether a full receivership should be ordered.

The moving party sought an order under Rules 15.03(4) and (5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure declaring that his former lawyers had no right to assert a lawyer’s possessory lien over documents belonging to him.

The law firm had represented the moving party in two civil actions and claimed unpaid legal fees exceeding $150,000, asserting a lien over litigation documents after being discharged without cause.

The court held that the law firm was entitled to assert the lien given the material unpaid balance and the circumstances of discharge.

However, the court noted that a substantial portion of the accounts may be statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and reduced the potential exposure accordingly.

The motion was conditionally resolved by permitting release of the documents if the moving party granted a collateral mortgage as security for up to $75,000; otherwise the motion would be dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against his former employer, the school board, and his union.

The school board and union argued the application was untimely and failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the alleged discrimination by the school board well over a year before filing the application, and that his delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case against the union, as there was no evidence that the union's handling of his grievance was based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging that his termination of employment violated the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed because the applicant had previously signed a comprehensive Settlement and Release agreement resolving a union grievance related to the same termination.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the applications had been appropriately dealt with in the grievance settlement, which included substantial monetary compensation for human rights damages.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments that the settlement was invalid due to contracting out of the Code, employer breach, lack of independent legal advice, duress, or lack of consideration.

The applications were dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code and as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a member of the ACTRA Toronto Extras Caucus, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, creed, and marital status, as well as reprisal, following her removal from the Caucus.

The Tribunal found that the incidents complained of were the result of interpersonal conflicts and the applicant's misinterpretation of comments and non-verbal cues, rather than discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's removal from the Caucus was due to her rigid adherence to formality and personality conflicts, not a reprisal for raising human rights concerns.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged she was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a settlement package.

The applicant argued she signed the release under duress due to her pregnancy and was misled about the circumstances of her termination.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress or fraudulent misrepresentation, concluding the applicant freely entered into the settlement after obtaining legal advice.

The Application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming her employment was terminated because she was pregnant.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application because the applicant had signed a full and final release as part of a severance package.

The Tribunal found that the release clearly encompassed claims under the Human Rights Code and that the applicant had exercised an informed and reasoned choice in signing it, without severe financial pressure or duress.

The Tribunal concluded it would be an abuse of process to allow the application to proceed and dismissed it.