OLAT 2012

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

The vehicle was impounded after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for life.

The applicant, who suffers from severe medical conditions including pneumonia and requires regular medical monitoring, missed approximately 14 critical pulmonary clinic appointments due to the lack of transportation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant credible and determined that the loss of the vehicle posed a threat to her health and safety, satisfying the criteria for exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for various alleged defects in their new home, including issues with a glass shower, cabinet doors, ceiling unevenness, chipped bricks, and a garage door.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the evidence and found that most of the items were either normal wear and tear, within acceptable construction tolerances, or adequately repaired by the builder.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal only with respect to the garage door frame, ordering Tarion to pay $350 for its repair.

The applicant, operator of Tailgators, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming refusing to remove conditions on its liquor licence.

The applicant sought to modify the patio closing time to keep patrons within a glass-enclosed sound barrier rather than congregating in the parking lot.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances, noting that the noise complaints now stemmed from the parking lot rather than the licensed area.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to modify the condition, allowing the patio to remain open until midnight without alcohol service after 10:45 p.m.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence based on a Medical Condition Report indicating alcohol dependence.

The report relied on AUDIT and CAGE scores obtained by the family physician.

At the hearing, evidence showed the initial test answers were provided by the applicant's wife, who had language difficulties and did not fully understand the questions.

The Tribunal found the medical report was based on hearsay and misunderstanding, and the Ministry provided no other objective evidence of alcohol addiction interfering with driving ability.

The appeal was allowed and the suspension was set aside.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to review its application for an additional outdoor licensed area due to objections.

At the hearing, no objectors attended.

The applicant reached an agreement with the local residents' association to attach four conditions to the licence, and provided evidence that the individual objectors had moved away.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to the agreed conditions.

The applicant sought a liquor licence for an additional outdoor patio area.

Local residents objected, citing concerns about noise, public drunkenness, and safety in the adjacent parkette.

The Tribunal found that the objectors did not meet the onus to prove that issuing the licence was not in the public interest, as the evidence of disorderly conduct could not be directly attributed to the applicant's patrons.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to several conditions, including restricted hours, noise controls, and cleanliness requirements, to mitigate the impact on the neighbourhood.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant owned two other vehicles and had alternative modes of transportation available, thereby failing to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

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 applied for a Consent Order without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the Consent Order, imposing conditions on the applicant's registration, including full disclosure, surrender of registration upon criminal conviction, and restrictions on acting as a dealer, partner, or investor prior to December 31, 2015.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar's refusal was based on the applicant's recent criminal conviction for breaking and entering and theft over $5,000, as well as allegations of unregistered trading.

While the Tribunal found the evidence of unregistered trading to be a misunderstanding, it upheld the refusal based on the applicant's criminal record.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a sustained period of unsupervised positive conduct since completing his conditional sentence, and therefore his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, which included a 90-day interim suspension and restricted the applicant's registration to the 'Wholesaler' class, along with various other compliance terms.

The applicant purchased return airline tickets to Pakistan from a travel agent.

While the applicant was abroad, the travel agent ceased operations without having purchased the return tickets.

The applicant had to purchase replacement tickets to return to Canada and subsequently filed a claim for compensation with the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO).

TICO denied the claim because it was filed beyond the strict three-month limitation period set out in Ontario Regulation 26/05.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that neither TICO nor the Tribunal has the discretionary power to extend the legislated timelines, despite the unfairness to the applicant who was travelling during the limitation period.

The applicant sought a liquor licence for a new restaurant and patio, requesting operating hours until 2:00 a.m.

Local residents objected, citing concerns about noise, increased traffic, and disruption to a nearby public swimming area, and requested that service end at 10:00 p.m. on the patio and 11:00 p.m. inside.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors did not fully meet the onus to prove that the requested hours were against the public interest.

The Tribunal approved the licence but imposed compromise conditions, including ceasing alcohol service on the patio at midnight (Monday-Saturday) and inside at 1:00 a.m., along with noise and lighting restrictions.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen by her common-law spouse and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's spouse, a disqualified driver, took the vehicle without her knowledge or consent while she was sleeping, intending to temporarily deprive her of it.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment and ordered the Registrar to release it, though it noted the exceptional hardship ground would have failed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse and revoke the registrations of the applicants 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, incorporating the agreed terms and conditions which permit the applicants' registration subject to strict compliance, disclosure, and operational requirements.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' order to impound her vehicle for 45 days after it was driven by an acquaintance with a suspended licence.

The applicant argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant took no steps to verify the driver's licence status, thus failing the due diligence test.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant had alternative transportation options, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The impoundment order was confirmed.

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 vehicle was impounded after the applicant was caught driving while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that alternate modes of transportation, such as public transit, taxis, and vehicles owned by his ex-spouse, were available to the applicant and his children.

Because an alternative existed, the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship were not met.

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.

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report indicating the applicant had sustained a traumatic brain injury with significant deficits.

The applicant failed to provide medical evidence to support reinstatement.

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

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

The Registrar argued that the Applicant was controlled by an individual whose previous trucking companies had their CVOR certificates cancelled due to catastrophic safety records.

The Tribunal found that the individual in question did control or manage the Applicant, making him a related person under the Highway Traffic Act.

Considering the combined safety record, the Tribunal concluded there was reason to believe the Applicant would not operate safely and ordered the cancellation of the CVOR certificate.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealership and two salespersons.

The dealership and one salesperson settled with the Registrar.

The hearing proceeded regarding the remaining salesperson, who had a history of curbsiding convictions, failed to disclose these convictions on multiple registration applications, and sold vehicles without disclosing their salvage or accident history.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the salesperson made false statements on his applications and that his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke his registration.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following medical reports of impaired motor function due to a spinal cord injury.

After a driving evaluation recommended cessation of driving, the applicant argued his physical condition had improved and his driving errors were due to unfamiliarity and lack of recent practice.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's physical condition did not significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.