OLAT 2012

The applicant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his application for registration as a funeral director.

The refusal was based on the applicant's past conduct towards co-workers, substance abuse issues, and criminal convictions for which he was still on probation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or that he had stopped using drugs.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant would not conduct himself with honesty, integrity, and in accordance with the law, and directed the Registrar to refuse the application.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that she was driving the vehicle, not the suspended driver, and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal accepted the police officer's testimony that the applicant and the suspended driver switched seats before being stopped.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship because alternative modes of transportation were available.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had alternative modes of transportation available, including another vehicle, public transit, and rides from a friend.

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

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of EZjet Airways Corp as a travel agent and wholesaler, along with an order freezing its funds, after its air carrier terminated their contract and cancelled flights.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties reached a settlement, and the Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement.

The settlement revoked the freeze order to allow the applicant to refund customers for unprovided travel services, subject to strict reporting and operational conditions, including a prohibition on new sales until all refunds are completed.

The applicant day care operator appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal seeking an order to transfer its licence to a new location after its lease expired.

The Director brought a motion to strike the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that under the Day Nurseries Act, a licence is site-specific and non-transferable.

Furthermore, the preconditions for an appeal under sections 13 and 14 of the Act were not met, as the Director had not issued a notice of proposal to refuse, renew, or revoke a licence, and the address on the licence was not a term or condition.

The appeal was dismissed as a nullity.

The applicants sought an extension of time to appeal decision letters issued by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding their new home warranty claims.

The applicants claimed they did not receive two of the letters and missed the 15-day appeal deadline.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the four-part test for extending time and found no bona fide intention to appeal, no credible explanation for the delay, and no merit to the case.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The Applicant appealed a decision by the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) denying her claim for compensation from the Travel Compensation Fund for four unused airline tickets purchased from a travel agency whose registration was later revoked.

The Applicant argued she did not travel due to her husband's illness and later discovered two of the tickets were fraudulently issued.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the travel services were available but not received because of the Applicant's own decision not to travel on the scheduled dates, triggering the exception under section 57(3)3 of O. Reg. 26/05.

The Tribunal also noted significant discrepancies in the Applicant's documentation and proof of payment.

The applicants appealed Tarion's decision denying their new home warranty claims for water penetration around balcony doors and a master bedroom.

The builder (added party) argued the appeal should be dismissed because the applicants refused to allow the builder to conduct a water test, allegedly voiding the warranty through denial of access.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that water penetration had occurred multiple times and was not caused by improper maintenance.

The Tribunal also held that the applicants' refusal to allow the builder to conduct a water test during an adversarial proceeding was reasonable and did not constitute a denial of access that would void the warranty.

Tarion was directed to determine the cause of the leaks and ensure repairs are completed.

The applicant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship to the vehicle's lessee.

The Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that the applicant owned approximately 1,400 vehicles.

Under O. Reg. 631/98, exceptional hardship can only be considered if no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available.

Because the applicant owned other vehicles, the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship were not met.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim regarding the installation of a Lyons brand whirlpool bathtub instead of a Kohler brand.

The applicants argued that a verbal representation was made promising a Kohler tub.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale did not specify a brand, expressly excluded verbal representations, and permitted the vendor to substitute an item of equal or better quality.

The installed eight-jet tub was deemed of better quality than the six-jet tub listed in the agreement.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant owned a second vehicle and that family members were able to assist with transportation.

Because an alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, 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 decision by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence due to his visual field not meeting minimum requirements under section 32(5)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held a hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Tribunal found that under section 50 of the Act and the applicable regulations, it only has jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions made under sub-clause 32(5)(b)(i), not sub-clause (ii).

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal as a nullity.

The Registrar's motion for costs was also refused, as the Tribunal found the self-represented applicant did not act frivolously or vexatiously in pursuing the appeal.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by her husband (a suspended driver) and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the husband took the vehicle to buy milk for the family without intent to deprive the applicant of it, meaning it was not stolen.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the applicant owned and had access to a second vehicle.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' order to impound their motor vehicle for 45 days after it was caught being driven by a suspended driver.

The applicant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to loss of employment opportunities and inability to visit family.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate that no alternative transportation was available, as public transit and taxis were accessible.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The applicant did not attend the hearing, and her counsel relied on an affidavit.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant took reasonable steps to verify the driver's licence validity or that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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 applicant claimed she needed the vehicle to transport her children, including one with special needs, to school and medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had access to alternative transportation, including assistance from her mother and a rental vehicle, and therefore failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim for alleged defects in their new home, including issues with cabinetry, flooring, and a balcony.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicants failed to submit the required Thirty Day Report and did not identify the alleged defects on the pre-delivery inspection form.

The Tribunal also accepted evidence that the balcony was a non-warrantable common element and that the ceiling texture conformed to acceptable industry standards.

The Applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding defects in the interior stairs of their new home.

Tarion accepted the Applicants' expert report recommending complete refinishing of the stairs, leaving the cost of repair as the sole issue.

The Tribunal reviewed various estimates and ordered Tarion to pay $6,915.00, which corresponded to an estimate provided by the Applicants for the agreed scope of work.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for a restaurant.

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

The objectors raised concerns about the proximity of a high school, underage drinking, drunk driving, and noise.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the proposed establishment was a family restaurant, not a bar, and there was no evidence to suggest the applicant would fail to comply with the law regarding serving minors or over-serving patrons.

The Tribunal concluded that granting the licence was not contrary to the public interest and approved the application.

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

The vehicle was impounded after a suspended driver took control of it without the applicant's permission.

The applicant had lent the vehicle to a licensed driver and explicitly warned the suspended driver not to drive.

The Tribunal found that the applicant exercised due diligence under section 50.2(3)(c) of the Act.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the motor vehicle.