OLAT 2013

The appellant, Genesis Garden Inc., appealed an Order to pay an Administrative Penalty issued by the Registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority.

The appellant brought a motion seeking a stay of the Order pending the appeal.

On consent of the parties, the Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the stay pending the final decision in the appeal.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim regarding a missing front porch railing and a missing door between the garage and laundry room.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the final grading brought the porch elevation within the Ontario Building Code standard, eliminating the need for a railing.

The Tribunal also accepted evidence that installing the garage door would violate the Building Code due to the grade difference requiring a landing.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claim.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for a major structural defect warranty.

The applicants alleged that insufficient roof ventilation caused mould growth and potential structural failure in their home's upper attic.

The Tribunal found no objective or expert evidence supporting the applicants' prospective concerns.

Relying on expert evidence that confirmed no mould contamination existed within the living space and that a minor attic issue did not affect air quality, the Tribunal concluded the applicants failed to prove a major structural defect.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to stay a Licence Appeal Tribunal hearing regarding the revocation of his motor vehicle dealer registration, pending the outcome of his civil lawsuit against the Registrar in the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant argued that the civil action, which alleged bad faith and ulterior motives by the Registrar, could render the Tribunal hearing moot and that proceeding would cause irreparable harm through unrecoverable legal costs and the risk of inconsistent findings.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant would not suffer irreparable harm.

Furthermore, the balance of inconvenience favoured proceeding with the hearing, as the public interest in timely regulatory oversight under consumer protection legislation outweighed the low risk of inconsistent findings.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the driver was not suspended and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship due to her special needs child.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the suspended driver was driving and had switched seats with the appellant when stopped by police.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as assistance from her mother and public transit, and therefore did not meet the criteria for exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant travel agency brought a motion to stay the Licence Appeal Tribunal's decision directing the Registrar to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, pending an appeal to the Divisional Court.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that the appeal raised a serious issue of statutory interpretation, that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm by being forced out of business if the stay were not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant as the Registrar could continue to monitor its operations.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The Applicant brought a motion for summary judgment to reverse Tarion's denial of a warranty claim, and requested costs due to late disclosure by the Respondent and Added Party.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the defects were excluded from warranty coverage under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal also denied the request for costs, noting that the late disclosure was inadvertent, did not cause undue prejudice, and did not meet the threshold for unreasonable or bad faith conduct.

The applicant, a travel agency, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The Registrar argued that the applicant was associated with a bankrupt travel agency, MKI, because both were controlled by the same individual, Ron Greenwood.

The Registrar also argued that the applicant must reimburse the Compensation Fund for claims paid due to MKI's receivership, and that Greenwood's past conduct disentitled the applicant to registration.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that Greenwood was in de facto control of the applicant, making the companies associated.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was required to reimburse the Compensation Fund and that Greenwood's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on with integrity and honesty.

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

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the father of her children drove it while his licence was suspended for life.

The applicant argued the vehicle was taken without her permission (stolen) and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the driver took the vehicle without permission and without colour of right, satisfying the ground that the vehicle was stolen.

The Tribunal rejected the exceptional hardship argument, noting alternative transportation was available.

The appeal was allowed and the impoundment was set aside.

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

The applicant had a history of criminal convictions for fraud and theft, had previously acted as an unregistered salesperson while impersonating his brother, and failed to disclose pending charges and a restitution order on his registration applications.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was ordered to refuse the registration.

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 the applicant's ex-boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not exercise due diligence because she gave him the keys without checking his licence status.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the applicant owned a second vehicle that she could drive, meaning an alternative mode of transportation was available.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicants appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for contraventions of O. Reg. 719/90.

The Tribunal upheld a $1,000 penalty for exceeding the licensed capacity, accepting the inspector's evidence that the premises were overcrowded.

However, the Tribunal set aside a $150 penalty for failing to ensure an employee had server training certification, finding that the employee had not worked beyond the 60-day grace period provided by the regulation.

The applicant appealed the 90-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The applicant argued he did not receive proper documentation and that his father took the car without permission.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had acquiesced to his father's use of the vehicle and did not consider it stolen.

As there was a previous impoundment within two years, exceptional hardship could not be considered.

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

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying her claim for the cost of installing a gas fireplace.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant sold her home and entered into a collateral agreement with the new owner to maintain her claim against Tarion.

Tarion brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the statutory warranty runs with the home and the applicant lost standing upon the sale.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the collateral agreement was a nullity as it offended s. 13(6) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, which prevents contracting out of the statutory warranties.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence following a low-speed collision caused by a hypoglycemic event.

The suspension was issued under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's hypoglycemia was caused by overexertion during exercise, and that she had since modified her routine and re-established glycemic control under specialist supervision.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued an Order of Monetary Penalty against the applicant licensee for allegedly permitting drunkenness on its premises, contrary to section 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

A patron was found passed out in a booth and taken to the hospital.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal set aside the monetary penalty, finding that the evidence did not establish on a balance of probabilities that the patron was drunk, nor did it establish that the establishment's staff knew or ought to have known she was intoxicated before she collapsed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The applicant testified that she had left the vehicle at a repair shop and had not given anyone permission to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was driven without the owner's consent and was therefore "stolen" within the meaning of section 50.2(3)(a) of the Act.

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

The applicant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically alcohol dependence and a seizure disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed medical evidence indicating the applicant had a history of alcohol abuse, cirrhosis, and seizures, as well as recent coronary bypass surgery.

Although the applicant had made significant progress towards abstinence, she had a brief relapse.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was addicted to alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, and confirmed the Registrar's decision requiring six more months of documented abstinence before reinstatement.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend her driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act based on a Medical Condition Report alleging alcohol and drug dependence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's family doctor filed the report in anger after a clash with the applicant, and that the doctor's critical comments were unreliable.

Based on the applicant's testimony and other evidence, the Tribunal concluded that she was not dependent on alcohol or drugs.

The decision of the Registrar was set aside.

The applicant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after he was caught driving with a suspended licence.

He filed an appeal 15 days after the statutory deadline and brought a motion for an extension of time.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test for granting an extension and found that the applicant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay prejudiced the Registrar, and the appeal lacked merit because financial hardship cannot be considered.

The motion for an extension of time was denied and the impoundment was confirmed.