OLAT 2012

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 14 days, alleging that security guards assaulted an intoxicated patron.

The patron and his friends testified that he was beaten by security guards in the staff kitchen and kicked while being thrown out.

The security guards testified that the patron was involved in a fight, bit a guard, and was later kicked by another patron while being restrained.

The Tribunal found the patron and his friends' evidence unreliable due to severe intoxication and accepted the security guards' testimony.

The Tribunal concluded that the patron was not assaulted by representatives of the licence holder and invited submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a seizure disorder.

The applicant experienced two grand mal seizures, which she attributed to discontinuing birth control pills, and declined anticonvulsant medication due to concerns about side effects.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant currently suffers from a medical condition that may render her unfit to safely operate a motor vehicle.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to continue the suspension of the applicant's driving privileges.

The Applicant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence following two post-operative seizures after the removal of a benign brain tumour.

The Registrar argued the Applicant should be seizure-free for 12 months before driving privileges were restored.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the seizures were related to the extended neurosurgery and that the risk of recurrent seizure activity was minimal.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision, concluding the Applicant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The applicant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship.

The vehicle had been leased to a client who defaulted and was subsequently caught driving while suspended.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship because it owned other vehicles that could be sold or leased, meaning alternatives were available.

The Tribunal confirmed the impoundment.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his conditional registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Applicant had failed to fully disclose his criminal record during the application process and subsequently breached conditions requiring him to provide an official criminal record check.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the Applicant breached the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, his conduct did not warrant revocation.

The Tribunal ordered that the registration be continued, subject to a 120-day suspension and additional reporting conditions.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 14 days.

The Tribunal previously found the applicant breached the Liquor Licence Act regulations by permitting minors to consume liquor, permitting drunkenness, and failing to maintain control over the premises.

After considering the serious nature of the infractions and the applicant's positive compliance history, the Tribunal ordered a 12-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence for Jax Bar and Grill.

The Registrar argued that the Applicant's past conduct, failure to cooperate with the investigation, and the heavy involvement of his father—who had an extensive criminal record—indicated the business would not be run with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal found the Applicant uncooperative, his testimony inconsistent, and concluded that his father would likely continue to play a dominant role in the operations.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the licence transfer.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's son drove it while his licence was suspended.

The applicant argued that the loss of the vehicle caused hardship because he needed it to commute from his late-night restaurant shift.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had alternatives, such as public transit and his wife's vehicle, and that the inconvenience did not amount to exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the applicant's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had numerous criminal and driving convictions, unpaid fines, and had repeatedly made false statements on his applications for registration.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible, would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and had provided false statements.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration and ordered the applicant to pay costs of $1,200.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

Following pre-hearing discussions, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the proceedings be disposed of without a hearing based on the agreed terms, which included the applicant completing a certification course, restrictions on his roles at a dealership, and strict disclosure obligations regarding vehicle history.

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

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, incorporating the Minutes of Settlement which required the applicant to submit monthly trust reconciliations, maintain minimum working capital, and comply with other financial reporting conditions.

The Applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons following a motor vehicle accident.

The Applicant argued that his loss of consciousness during the accident was due to a head injury, not a seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that a seizure was likely implicated in the accident, given the Applicant's medical history of seizures, his family physician's report, and the unusual circumstances of the accident.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The applicant, a registered travel agent, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to maintain a trust account and minimum working capital.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, which required the applicant to submit manager application documents, file annual financial statements, and maintain minimum working capital.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' refusal to issue a Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and brought a motion seeking an order to operate pending the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 50(2) of the Highway Traffic Act to order the issuance of a certificate pending an appeal, as doing so would usurp the Registrar's authority in a regulatory regime.

The Tribunal expedited the hearing on the merits.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for an additional outdoor area for 30 persons.

A local resident filed a written objection, prompting a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

The objector failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal held that the onus was on the objector to prove that issuing the licence was against the public interest.

In the absence of any evidence from the objector, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence following a Medical Condition Report indicating possible seizures.

The applicant testified she experiences 'blackouts' preceded by a warning, but argued that tests for epilepsy were negative.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that despite the lack of a definitive neurological diagnosis, the applicant's spells constitute a possible risk to driving sufficient to warrant maintaining the suspension.

The applicants appealed a proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to revoke their Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS) Type 6 licence and mechanic registration.

The Director alleged the applicants issued Structural Inspection Certificates for vehicles that did not meet prescribed standards, submitted false insurance estimates, and failed to comply with regulations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicants consistently failed to perform competent inspections, submitted fraudulent documents, and put unsafe vehicles on the road.

The Tribunal directed the Director to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The applicant, who was the suspended driver at the time of the impoundment, claimed the vehicle was needed to transport materials for his wife's business and because she had difficulty using public transit due to a fracture.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that under O. Reg. 631/98, financial losses cannot be considered when the owner and the suspended driver are the same person.

Furthermore, no specific losses were established for the applicant's wife, as she had not been able to work since her injury.

The applicants, a real estate broker and her brokerage, appealed a proposal by the Registrar to suspend their registrations.

The proposal was based on the broker's failure to comply with a prior Discipline Committee order requiring her to pay a $7,000 fine and complete educational courses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the broker's failure to comply with the order demonstrated that she would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the suspension until the broker fully complied with the Discipline Committee order.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship as she is a single mother who cannot afford the fees or alternative transportation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that under O. Reg. 631/98, financial loss cannot be considered when the owner of the vehicle and the suspended driver are the same person.

The impoundment was confirmed.