OLAT 2012

The Registrar issued a proposal to revoke the motor vehicle dealer registration of the applicant due to his criminal convictions for possession of stolen property and Highway Traffic Act offences.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's serious industry-related criminal convictions afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to proceed with the revocation, but stayed the order briefly to allow the applicant's son to apply for his own dealer's licence.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had access to alternative modes of transportation, including public transit and another vehicle registered in her name.

As an alternative existed, the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for a pizzeria.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving written objections from residents.

At the hearing, the parties presented a settlement agreement withdrawing the objections on the condition that 18 specific operating conditions be attached to the licence.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for reimbursement of a home inspector's invoice, replacement of hardwood flooring, and installation of a new kitchen sink in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the cost of consultation services is not a prescribed damage under Regulation 892.

Furthermore, the claims for the flooring and sink were not warranted substitutions because the specific items requested by the applicants were not explicitly detailed in the written Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to review its liquor licence application due to objections.

At the hearing, the parties, including the City of Toronto, reached a settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the liquor licence subject to agreed-upon conditions, including restrictions on patio hours, noise control, and food service requirements.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of their motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

At the hearing, the Tribunal noted that the applicant's Criminal Code suspension had expired prior to the impoundment.

The Registrar's agent acknowledged the vehicle was improperly impounded and agreed to release it.

The Tribunal concluded the matter without issuing an order.

The applicant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its plates.

The Registrar's order was based on the applicant's poor safety record and its relationship to another company with a poor safety record.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was related to the other company and that their combined safety records provided reason to believe the applicant would not operate safely.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the cancellation and seizure order.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its liquor sales licence.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued the proposal because the applicant failed to surrender its licence immediately after ceasing to operate the business.

The applicant argued that the business was closed due to health issues and that a sale was pending.

The Tribunal found that the establishment had been closed for more than two years without the licence being surrendered, constituting a breach of section 56 of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal and revoke the licence.

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 a suspended driver.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had access to alternative modes of transportation, including public transit and her mother's vehicle.

Because an alternative existed, the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant, a registered motor vehicle salesperson, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration.

The proposal was based on the applicant's criminal conviction for producing a controlled substance (a marijuana grow operation) and his subsequent conditional sentence.

The Registrar argued this conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe the applicant would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the conduct was out of character, the applicant had strong support from his employers, and he had expressed genuine remorse.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal, allowing the applicant to retain his registration subject to conditions requiring him to report any future charges.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's son, a suspended driver, was caught driving it.

The applicant argued that the vehicle was stolen by her son without her knowledge or consent while she was out of town, and that she did not report it stolen to police to avoid extending his potential incarceration.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that the vehicle was taken without consent and found that it was stolen at the time of impoundment.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 14 days, alleging the applicant permitted drunkenness and obstructed a police inspection.

The allegations arose from an incident where plainclothes police officers confronted an off-duty employee in the staff washroom, leading to an altercation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the patron's actions could not be attributed to the applicant and that management acted responsibly to de-escalate the situation.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal.

The applicants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke and suspend their registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a consent order without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, imposing conditions on the dealer and its principal regarding compliance, disclosure of offences, education, and record-keeping.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, imposing conditions on the applicant's registration, including requirements to maintain a visible sign, operate exclusively from the approved location, comply with municipal by-laws, and not invite the public to deal at unapproved locations.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would cause exceptional hardship to his mother and daughter.

The applicant admitted to driving while his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that alternative modes of transportation were available to the applicant and his family, albeit inconvenient.

As an alternative existed, the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The Applicant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed after he refused to provide a blood sample following a motor vehicle accident.

The Applicant argued that a concussion sustained in the accident rendered him unable to make rational decisions or consent to the blood test.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he was medically unable to comply with the demand, noting evidence that he had attempted to flee the scene and specifically requested his lawyer.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim regarding a plumbing issue where soap suds bubbled up in one side of their double kitchen sink.

The vendor, Arista Homes, was added as a party.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide evidence that the phenomenon was a defect in work or materials or a breach of the Ontario Building Code, as evidence indicated it was a normal result of double sink drainage physics.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claim.

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

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report from the applicant's physician indicating alcohol dependence and mental instability.

The applicant failed to complete the required Substance Abuse Assessment Form or provide evidence of abstinence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision, finding that the medical evidence of alcohol dependence justified the suspension under the Highway Traffic Act and applicable regulations.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a medical report indicating he had suffered a stroke.

The applicant underwent three driver evaluations.

Despite some identified deficiencies in the first two tests, the Tribunal reviewed a DVD recording of the third road test and found significant improvement.

Considering mitigating factors such as unfamiliarity with the test vehicle, language barriers, and weather conditions, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's physical condition would not significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was set aside.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had access to alternate transportation, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under section 10(1) of O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.