OLAT 2012

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim for cupping in their new home's hardwood floors.

The applicants argued the cupping resulted from defective materials or unworkmanlike installation by the vendor.

Tarion and the vendor contended the minor cupping was caused by the applicants' failure to properly control humidity in the home.

The Tribunal found the applicants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the cupping arose from a defect in materials or workmanship, noting evidence of poor humidity control by the homeowners.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed a 45-day vehicle impoundment order made by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's brother-in-law was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that no alternative transportation was available, as she had access to rides from family, public transportation, and a sixth licensed vehicle at her residence.

The Applicants appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling their Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) certificates and seizing their plates.

The Registrar had previously suspended the CVORs, but evidence showed the Applicants continued to operate commercial vehicles in Ontario and other provinces during the suspension period.

The Applicants also failed to provide required documents to Ministry auditors and had a poor safety record.

The Tribunal found the Applicants' misconduct egregious and dismissed the appeal, confirming the cancellation of the CVOR certificates and plates.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant allowed a driver, whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction, to drive it.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that public transportation was available to the applicant.

Under O. Reg. 631/98, exceptional hardship cannot be established if an alternative to the impounded vehicle exists.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke and suspend his 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, suspending the applicant's registration as a salesperson for 60 days and imposing conditions regarding disclosure and compliance with the Code of Ethics.

The applicant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspending its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its plates for 21 days due to a poor safety record.

The applicant argued its safety record was inaccurate because many of its vehicles were tow trucks, which are exempt from the CVOR system.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's record contained inaccuracies due to the inclusion of exempt vehicles, the applicant had contributed to the confusion by registering them and failing to monitor its record.

Given the applicant's lack of diligence regarding safety compliance, the Tribunal upheld the suspension but reduced it to 7 days.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 10 days for permitting minors to consume liquor and failing to inspect identification.

The Tribunal previously found the applicant breached subsections 30(4) and 41(1) of O. Reg. 719/90.

In this decision on sanction, the Tribunal considered the seriousness of the contraventions, the lack of prior infractions, and the applicant's remedial actions.

The Tribunal ordered a six-day suspension of the liquor licence to achieve specific and general deterrence.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to revoke the applicant's liquor licence due to unremitted retail sales tax totaling $17,405.62.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence unless the applicant remitted specified amounts of the outstanding tax by certified cheque on three scheduled dates.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of their motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained.

The vehicle had been driven by a suspended driver unknown to the applicant.

The applicant provided evidence that the theft was reported to the police and their insurance company.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the vehicle was taken without the applicant's consent and with the intention to deprive them of it, satisfying the criteria for a stolen vehicle.

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

The applicant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for allegedly permitting drunkenness on its licensed premises, contrary to subsection 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90.

While the Tribunal found that a patron was intoxicated on the premises, it concluded there was insufficient evidence that the licensee permitted the drunkenness to occur, as the licensee was in the process of dealing with the situation when inspectors arrived.

The appeal was allowed and the monetary penalty was set aside.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement, which included strict conditions on the applicants' business practices, record-keeping, advertising, disclosure obligations, and a requirement to complete the OMVIC Automotive Certification Course.

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

The suspension was based on medical reports indicating the applicant had suffered a cluster of seizures and was non-compliant with anti-convulsant medication.

Additionally, the applicant suffered from bipolar disorder, was non-compliant with her psychiatric medication, and had recently driven a vehicle at 200 km/h while in a manic state.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's medical conditions were likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

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

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke and refuse his 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 for full disclosure, notification of any future criminal charges, and restrictions on acting as a dealer, partner, or investor.

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 in dispute: exterior siding, waterproofing membrane, garden door, step entrance, fireplace hearth, and basement subfloor.

The Tribunal found that the siding, waterproofing membrane, fireplace hearth, and basement subfloor demonstrated poor workmanship and were covered by the statutory warranty.

The claims regarding the garden door and step entrance were dismissed.

Tarion was ordered to pay the homeowners $2,445.00 in full satisfaction of their claims.

The applicant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed for failing to provide a breath sample.

She argued that a previous back injury and childhood tuberculosis prevented her from completing the breath test.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence, such as pulmonary function tests or a specialist report, to prove she suffered from a medical condition that precluded her compliance with the breath demand.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension was confirmed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of the applicant travel agency for failing to file financial statements.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement requiring the applicant to file annual financial statements, maintain minimum working capital, and comply with other regulatory requirements.

The Tribunal issued a Consent Order under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, disposing of the appeal without a hearing and incorporating the terms of the settlement.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant's evidence regarding the alleged theft to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and her admitted intoxication.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim, noting that the applicant had access to public transportation and was provided with bus passes, meaning an alternative to the impounded vehicle existed.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for $7,500 in delayed occupancy compensation.

The applicants purchased a new condominium home, but occupancy was delayed due to a fire that required complete reconstruction of the building.

The builder (Added Party) issued notices of an Unavoidable Delay and later set a new firm occupancy date of May 12, 2011, which the applicants had mutually agreed to for their own convenience.

The applicants argued the notice ending the delay was improper.

The Tribunal found that the builder provided proper written notice in accordance with the Addendum to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and therefore the applicants were not entitled to compensation.

The applicant leasing company appealed the 90-day impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was detained while being driven by a lessee whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The applicant argued it exercised due diligence because it had no facility to verify the validity of drivers' licences for leased vehicles, especially when leased to companies with multiple drivers.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's inability to verify licences contradicted its claim of exercising due diligence.

The appeal was dismissed and the 90-day impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant rental car company appealed the impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was rented to a driver whose licence was suspended.

The applicant argued it exercised due diligence by having its staff visually inspect the driver's licence, which appeared valid and showed a future expiry date.

The Tribunal found that the Ministry's policy requiring businesses to verify licence validity by phone or online was not mandated by the Act or regulations.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's procedure of visually checking the licence was reasonable and prudent, satisfying the due diligence requirement, and ordered the release of the vehicle.