OLAT 2012

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a claim for compensation related to a delayed closing.

The applicant had purchased a lot and subsequently entered into a separate agreement for the construction of a manufactured home on the lot.

The Tribunal found that because there were separate agreements for the land and the home, and the applicant owned the lot during construction, the home was a 'contract home' rather than a 'freehold home'.

Under the applicable regulations and Tarion guidelines, contract homes are not eligible for the delayed closing warranty.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for delayed closing compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The central issue was whether the builder, Forestside Estates Inc., provided proper notice of a delayed closing date.

The builder's initial registered letter was returned due to the applicants moving without providing a written change of address.

The builder subsequently obtained the new address by phone and sent a second notice by regular mail.

The Tribunal found that the deemed delivery provision for the registered letter was rebutted by the builder's actual knowledge of the failed delivery, but the second notice sent by regular mail was successfully delivered and constituted proper notice.

The appeal was dismissed and the claim for compensation was disallowed.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for a granite countertop in a newly purchased condominium.

The applicant had paid a premium for a specific granite slab and obtained a written endorsement from the supplier's salesperson that the finished product would not contain a visible vein.

The installed countertop contained a vein.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the specific endorsement overrode the supplier's general disclaimer regarding natural stone variations.

The Tribunal concluded that the countertop was not free from defects, constituting a breach of warranty, and ordered Tarion to replace the countertop without any veins.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding several alleged construction defects in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed six remaining items: exterior siding, waterproofing membrane, garden door, step entrance, fireplace hearth, and basement subfloor.

The Tribunal found breaches of the statutory warranty for the siding, waterproofing membrane, fireplace hearth, and subfloor, awarding a total of $2,445.00 for repairs.

The claims regarding the garden door and step entrance were dismissed as the applicants failed to prove a breach of warranty.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for a major structural defect warranty regarding their new home.

The applicants raised concerns about foundation cracks, soil settlement, the septic system, and other issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicants failed to provide evidence that the defects rendered the home uninhabitable or unsafe, and thus did not meet the statutory definition of a major structural defect.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for cracked window frames, water penetration from the roof, and gaps between window frames and walls in a new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the claims for cracked window frames and gaps were submitted outside the one-year statutory warranty period for defects in materials and workmanship.

The applicant failed to provide evidence that the damage was caused by water penetration, which would have fallen under the two-year warranty.

The tribunal accepted evidence that the window frame damage was likely caused by condensation exacerbated by the installation of California shutters.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The applicant's vehicle was impounded after he allowed an acquaintance, whose licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction, to drive it.

The applicant, an airport limousine driver, rented a replacement vehicle to commute to work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the rental vehicle constituted a reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, and therefore the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant exercised due diligence in verifying the driver's licence.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of the applicant travel agency under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to file financial statements and trust account reconciliations.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, incorporating the Minutes of Settlement which require the applicant to submit monthly trust reconciliations, file annual financial statements, and maintain minimum working capital.

The applicants appealed two decisions by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims regarding their new home.

The first claim alleged a major structural defect due to dampness and efflorescence on the garage foundation wall.

The second claim sought Second-Year warranty coverage for the same issue.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed both appeals, finding no evidence of a load-bearing failure or that the home was uninhabitable, which is required for a major structural defect.

Furthermore, the tribunal found the applicants failed to request a conciliation inspection within the prescribed eligibility period for the Second-Year warranty.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the Applicant's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson due to a prior assault conviction, pending criminal charges for assault causing bodily harm and marijuana possession, and alleged false statements on his application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant's conduct, including a physical altercation that was likely a 'flight or fight' response, did not provide reasonable grounds to believe he would fail to conduct business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal, subject to conditions requiring the Applicant to report the outcome of his pending charges.

The Applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a medical report indicating alcohol dependence.

The suspension followed an emergency room visit where a physician diagnosed alcohol dependence after a brief interview.

The Applicant's family physician subsequently assessed her, finding no alcohol dependence and recommending reinstatement.

The Tribunal found the Applicant's testimony of abstinence credible and concluded she did not suffer from a medical condition making it dangerous to drive.

The Registrar's decision was set aside and the licence reinstated.

The applicants brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a decision letter from Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding new home warranty claims.

The parties had previously executed a settlement agreement and release in December 2010 covering the claims at issue.

Applying the four-factor test for extending time, the Tribunal found the delay was unexplained, the respondent would be prejudiced by reopening settled claims, and the appeal lacked merit due to the binding release.

The motion was dismissed and costs of $400 were awarded to the respondent.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's registration as a salesperson/dealer under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

During the hearing, the parties requested an adjournment and subsequently submitted a joint settlement pursuant to section 6(2) of the Act and section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal accepted the settlement and ordered the proceedings concluded without a full hearing, subject to the agreed terms and conditions.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to medical reasons.

The suspension followed a police report of a family dispute where the applicant attempted to jump from a moving vehicle.

Medical evidence indicated the applicant suffered from bipolar disorder and a personality disorder, and was not compliant with prescribed medication.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that without treatment, the applicant's mental condition was likely to lead to a loss of self-control that would significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The applicant condominium corporation appealed a Tarion Warranty Corporation decision disallowing claims regarding the construction of second-floor decks.

The builder had unilaterally changed the deck design from an open wood deck to a membrane-covered deck without obtaining a revised building permit.

The Tribunal found that the as-built decks were not of equal or better quality than the original design and suffered from numerous defects, including building code violations, improper moisture content, rusting steel, and a leaking membrane.

The Tribunal ordered the builder to perform extensive warranty repairs and provide the required warranties to the condominium board.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the applicant's liquor licence, alleging the licensee permitted drunkenness on the premises.

The allegations stemmed from an incident where inspectors observed an intoxicated female patron who was later arrested for impaired driving.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the patron exhibited behaviour that should have alerted the licensee's staff to her intoxication prior to the inspectors' intervention.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the licensee knew or ought to have known the patron was drunk, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act due to a reported psychiatric condition.

The Ministry required a six-month period of stability following two hospital admissions.

The Tribunal found that the hospital admissions were prolonged due to the applicant's remote location and lack of local outpatient psychiatric care.

Medical evidence from her treating physician and psychiatrist supported her ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal concluded that her mental health issues did not significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of the applicants under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement agreement prior to the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the terms of settlement, which included restricting the applicants' registration to the 'Wholesaler' class for one year, imposing a 90-day interim suspension, and requiring successful completion of the OMVIC Certification Course.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a mild hypoglycemic episode while driving.

The applicant had pulled over safely, received medical attention, and subsequently demonstrated improved glycemic control and medication changes.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant provided reasonable proof of illness stability and personal understanding, concluding that the standard six-month observation period was unnecessary in this specific case.

The decision to suspend the licence was set aside.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment, finding that the applicant had access to alternative modes of transportation, such as taxis and rides from friends and family, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.