OLAT 2012

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim regarding a defective heating system in their new home.

The builder recently made repairs to the system, but due to warm weather, the applicants had not been able to evaluate their effectiveness.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal without prejudice due to a lack of post-repair evidence, and ordered Tarion to warrant the current heating system repairs until March 1, 2013.

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

The vehicle was driven by a suspended driver who was staying at the applicant's home.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was taken without the applicant's knowledge or consent, satisfying the definition of a stolen vehicle for the purposes of the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The applicant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for alleged contraventions of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

At the commencement of the hearing, the Registrar withdrew the order because its key witness was unable to attend.

The Tribunal noted the withdrawal and concluded the matter.

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

The Applicant had a history of schizophrenia and experienced ongoing hallucinations while driving, though he had been off medication for two years without a relapse or any motor vehicle accidents.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision, finding that the Applicant suffers from a mental disability likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and upheld the requirement for an updated psychiatric assessment and treatment compliance.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the Applicant's real estate broker's licence based on allegations of his involvement in a stolen car 'chop shop' operation, failure to disclose criminal charges, and unauthorized use of the 'P.Eng.' designation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove the Applicant's involvement in the chop shop.

However, the Applicant admitted to failing to disclose criminal charges on his registration applications.

The Tribunal concluded that while the non-disclosure was a serious misdeed, it did not warrant revocation.

Instead, the Tribunal ordered a 90-day suspension of the Applicant's registration and imposed conditions regarding future disclosures and criminal record checks.

The applicant appealed two Orders of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for contraventions of the Liquor Licence Act regulations.

Part way through the hearing, the applicant withdrew its appeals.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the appeals withdrawn and closed the files.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under 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 an alternate vehicle, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

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 conditions that the applicant not act as a partner, shareholder, officer, director, or controlling mind of a dealer, and not apply to be a motor vehicle dealer for a period of two years.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke 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 ordered the proceedings concluded on the basis of the agreed terms and conditions, which included requirements regarding salespersons, advertising, books and records, premises, disclosure, and financial responsibility.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspending her driver's licence due to alcohol dependence.

The Ministry received medical reports indicating the applicant had been hospitalized for alcohol intoxication and had a history of alcohol abuse.

The applicant argued she had been abstinent for four months and needed her licence to help her family.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the applicant had a serious problem with alcohol dependence and had not provided the necessary updated medical documentation and proof of a 12-month abstinence period required by the Ministry.

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

The parties reached a written 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 ordered that the proceedings be concluded on the basis of the agreed terms and conditions, which included strict compliance with registration, advertising, disclosure, and record-keeping requirements.

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

At the opening of the hearing, counsel for two of the applicants requested an adjournment because he was recently retained and had not reviewed the disclosure with his clients.

The self-represented applicant also supported the motion, and it was revealed he had not received the disclosure and his representative was only qualified as an interpreter.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to allow the applicants to properly prepare and retain qualified representation, subject to conditions including restrictions on advertising and providing the Registrar with access to records.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 14 days, alleging that a patron was assaulted by representatives of the licence holder.

Following a hearing, the Tribunal found as a matter of fact that no such assault occurred.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the Notice of Proposal.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario imposed a $6,000 monetary penalty on the applicant licensee for allegedly permitting drunkenness and failing to ensure reasonable measures regarding disorderly conduct.

The Registrar abandoned the disorderly conduct allegation at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that while a patron was intoxicated outside the bar, there was no evidence regarding her state or interaction with staff while inside the premises.

Applying the test from 1213963 Ontario Ltd., the Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence that the licensee knew or ought to have known of the drunkenness.

The monetary penalty was set aside.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's daughter was caught driving it while her licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant took no reasonable steps to verify his daughter's licence status and that alternate modes of transportation were available, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal of the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The applicant had filed a timely appeal on behalf of his dealership but inadvertently failed to file a separate appeal for his personal registration.

Applying the four factors from Manuel v. Registrar, the Tribunal found a bona fide intention to appeal, a short delay of seven days, no prejudice to the Registrar, and sufficient merit to warrant a hearing.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's brother was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a criminal conviction.

The applicant argued he needed the vehicle for work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had access to a company truck as an alternative mode of transportation, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying in part their claim regarding a new home purchased from the added party.

Following a discussion of the remaining issue, the parties reached an agreement to resolve the matter.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal directed the appeal to be withdrawn.

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

During a pre-hearing, the parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered that the dealership's appeal be withdrawn, resulting in the immediate revocation of its registration.

The individual applicant's registration was suspended for 12 months, with reinstatement conditional upon completing an ethics course, securing approved employment, and maintaining a clean record.

The individual also agreed to restrictions on future roles and applications.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Superintendent to revoke its registration under the Private Career Colleges Act.

At the hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a mutually agreeable resolution and the applicant wished to withdraw its appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and ordered the file closed.