OLAT 2012

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming refusing to remove conditions on its liquor licence that prohibited live or amplified music on the patio and required the patio to close at 11:00 p.m.

The applicant presented evidence that the patio had been relocated from facing a residential street to facing a commercial area, directing noise away from residences.

The Tribunal found this constituted a change of circumstances under section 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act and ordered the Registrar to remove the conditions.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused 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 had access to alternative transportation, such as local bus service, and that there was no threat to health or safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspending his driver's licence following an incident where he pulled over on a highway and was allegedly unresponsive.

The Registrar suspended the licence pending medical information regarding a possible syncope or loss of consciousness.

The applicant's physician refused to provide a clinical note despite tests being conducted.

The Tribunal found the applicant credible, determined the incident was a single unexplained episode with no recurrence over four months, and set aside the Registrar's decision, restoring the applicant's driving privileges.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for an upscale restaurant.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents regarding parking, traffic, and noise.

At the hearing, the sole attending objector conceded that the proposed establishment would not cause more issues than an unlicenced restaurant and that traffic control was a municipal issue.

The Tribunal found that the objectors failed to demonstrate that granting the licence would be against the public interest under section 6(2)(h) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of their motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The respondent's agent informed the Tribunal that the vehicle had been improperly impounded for 45 days instead of the proper 7 days for an administrative driver's licence suspension, and had already been released by the police.

As the vehicle was already released, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and concluded the matter.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to their construction business.

The Tribunal found that while the impoundment caused inconvenience and some financial cost, the applicant had access to alternative transportation and did not meet the strict statutory criteria for exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The Applicant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles after she failed to provide a breath sample.

The Applicant argued she was unable to blow into the breathalyzer due to asthma, chronic bronchitis, and a panic attack, and presented a doctor's note stating she had asthma.

The Tribunal found the Applicant's medical evidence insufficient to prove she was incapable of attempting to provide a breath sample, noting her recent activities and lack of severe respiratory distress.

The Tribunal concluded the Applicant used her medical condition as an excuse to avoid the test and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend her licence.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to suspend its liquor licence for 14 days for permitting drunkenness on its premises.

The applicant argued the patron in question was not intoxicated but was suffering from diabetes.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the testimony of the Registrar's inspectors and police officers regarding the patron's signs of intoxication to be more credible than the applicant's witness.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the applicant for failing to call the patron to testify or provide medical evidence of his diabetes.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant permitted drunkenness and directed the Registrar to carry out the 14-day suspension.

The applicant nightclub appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for permitting drunkenness on its premises, contrary to s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act.

A liquor inspector observed a severely intoxicated patron vomiting at the bar while staff failed to intervene.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the patron was intoxicated and that the nightclub's staff knew or ought to have known of his condition.

The Tribunal upheld the monetary penalty and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under 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 an alternative vehicle during the impoundment period.

As the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship require that no alternative transportation be available, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The applicant argued that the driver's licence was not suspended at the time of the impoundment and that the loss of the vehicle would cause exceptional hardship to the business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant failed to prove the driver held a valid licence and failed to establish exceptional hardship, as alternative transportation was available and there was no proof of immediate, significant, and long-lasting losses.

The Registrar of the Travel Industry Act, 2002 issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of the applicant travel wholesaler due to repeated failures to file financial statements on time and maintain minimum working capital.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had operated at a loss for several years, failed to correct significant working capital deficiencies, and failed to comply with regulatory filing deadlines.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible or carry on business in accordance with the law.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's roommate, whose licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction, was caught driving it.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had alternative transportation available (taxis) to get to work, and therefore failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The applicant sought a liquor licence for an outdoor patio at its restaurant, which was opposed by local residents concerned about noise from amplified music and late-night conversation.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions, including ceasing alcohol service at 10:30 p.m., prohibiting amplified music after 10:00 p.m., and requiring the applicant to provide a contact number for noise complaints.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage on the basis that the added party was not a 'builder' under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The applicant had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home, but also entered into side contracts with the site supervisor for extra work.

The Tribunal found that the added party was a builder because it remained in control of the construction and provided everything necessary to deliver a completed home.

However, the Tribunal also found that the side contracts with the site supervisor constituted work and material supplied by the owner, and any defects in that work were excluded from warranty coverage under s. 13(2)(a) of the Act.

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

The applicant, who was also the suspended driver, claimed he believed his licence was reinstated after paying fines and that the impoundment would negatively impact his business.

The Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility regarding his knowledge of the suspension and failed to establish due diligence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the applicant owned other vehicles and the impact of the loss would only affect the suspended driver himself.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicant sought to relocate its campus bar, the Phoenix Bar & Grill, to a new central location at McMaster University.

Neighborhood residents objected to the liquor licence application, citing ongoing issues with intoxicated students, noise, and vandalism in the area.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the residents' concerns about general student drunkenness were valid, there was no evidence linking these issues specifically to the applicant's operations, which had a 43-year history without infractions.

The Tribunal approved the licence application but attached conditions regarding patio music, surveillance, and community contact to address the residents' concerns.

The Applicant, a casino employee, appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming after being criminally charged with assault and breach of recognizance relating to a domestic dispute with a co-worker.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the workplace harassment complaint against the Applicant was groundless and that he did not pose a threat to public safety or the integrity of the gaming industry.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to set aside the suspension and attached conditions to the Applicant's registration pending the outcome of the criminal charges.

The applicant, operating a theatre in a condominium complex, applied for a liquor licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application due to objections from the City of Toronto, the condominium corporation, and residents.

The City and the condominium corporation consented to the licence subject to agreed conditions.

The residents objected based on safety and security cost concerns.

The Tribunal found no evidence that granting the licence would be contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal approved the application with the agreed conditions and declined to impose additional conditions requested by the condominium corporation.

The applicants appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' orders suspending the CVOR certificate of the applicant company for 30 days and refusing to issue a CVOR certificate to a related applicant company.

The Tribunal found that the applicant company had an abysmal safety record with a violation rate of 136.3%, justifying the 30-day suspension.

The Tribunal also found that the related applicant company was a related person to the applicant company and upheld the Registrar's refusal to issue it a CVOR certificate.