OLAT 2013

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

She argued that the vehicle was stolen by a suspended driver and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was borrowed, not stolen, as the applicant had lent it to a friend who then allowed the suspended driver to use it.

The Tribunal also dismissed the exceptional hardship claim because the applicant had access to alternative transportation.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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 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, granting the registration subject to strict conditions, including restrictions on trading, disclosure requirements, and a prohibition on acting as a controlling mind of a dealer.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was driven by her son while his licence was suspended.

She argued due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant failed to exercise due diligence because she only read the first page of the court order suspending her son's licence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the applicant owned a second vehicle that she could use as an alternative.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to revoke the applicant's liquor licence, alleging obstruction of police inspections, holding unauthorized liquor, and failing to pay cost orders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to facilitate inspections on two occasions and obstructed an inspection on one occasion by refusing police access to a locked cooler and office.

The allegations regarding unauthorized liquor and unpaid costs were not proven.

The Tribunal concluded that revocation was not appropriate, noting the owner's willingness to facilitate other inspections, and instead ordered a 21-day suspension of the liquor licence.

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

The applicant had lent her vehicle to an unlicensed driver.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had managed to find alternative transportation to work, did not lose her employment, and her financial difficulties pre-dated the impoundment.

The Tribunal concluded that the grounds for exceptional hardship were not met and confirmed the impoundment.

The Tribunal determined the appropriate sanction for a licensee found to have committed multiple breaches of the Liquor Licence Act, including permitting immoderate consumption, allowing violent conduct, and obstructing an AGCO investigation.

The Registrar sought a 14-day suspension and a video surveillance condition, while the licensee proposed a fine.

The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to impose a fine and ordered a 10-day suspension along with the requested video surveillance condition to serve as specific and general deterrence.

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

The applicant had an overall safety violation rate of 107.3%, placing it in the worst 0.2% of carriers in Ontario.

Despite a warning letter and a failed facility audit, the applicant's safety record deteriorated further.

The Tribunal found that the applicant presented no defence or plan for improvement and confirmed the Registrar's order to cancel the certificate and seize the plates.

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

The applicant, a Revenue Canada auditor living in a rural area, claimed she needed the vehicle for work and had taken paid vacation leave since the impoundment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had not suffered significant and long-lasting losses, as she had not lost income and had not attempted to mitigate her losses by renting a vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by a suspended driver and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The applicant testified that she had forbidden the suspended driver from driving her vehicle and that he took the keys without her knowledge or consent.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence and found that the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for secondary damages related to mould contamination in their new home.

The builder had gone bankrupt, and Tarion had previously remediated the mould issue.

The applicants sought compensation for cleaning clothing and damaged personal effects, and requested further mould testing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim for secondary damages, finding it had no jurisdiction to order such payments as they are explicitly excluded under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

However, the Tribunal directed Tarion to proceed with further destructive testing and remediation as offered in its Supplementary Decision Letter to ensure the home was safe and habitable.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's friend, who was driving the vehicle, was found to be a suspended driver.

The applicant, who was pregnant and self-employed, argued that the loss of the vehicle would cause exceptional hardship for her work and medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as taxis and rides from family and friends, and therefore failed to establish exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant, owner of the Scruffy Duck Restaurant, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming refusing to remove conditions from its liquor licence.

The conditions restricted indoor and patio hours and prohibited live or amplified music on the patio.

The applicant argued a change in circumstances since purchasing the establishment in 2008 and that removing conditions was not contrary to the public interest.

Objectors raised concerns about noise and patron behaviour.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances, noting the new owners had no compliance issues and had implemented sound control measures.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, extending indoor and patio hours, but retained the prohibitions on live and amplified music on the patio due to proximity to residential neighbours.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for secondary damages related to mould contamination in their new home.

The applicants sought compensation for cleaning clothing and damaged personal effects.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim for secondary damages, finding that the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act explicitly excludes such damages.

However, the Tribunal directed Tarion to proceed with further destructive testing and remediation work as outlined in a supplementary decision letter to ensure the home is safe and habitable.

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

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

The applicant, a university student, argued that the impoundment caused financial hardship due to impound fees and repair costs from an accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had access to public transit as a reasonable alternative to the vehicle, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under the regulations.

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

The Tribunal found that the initial report was made after a brief emergency room visit and that subsequent medical evidence attributed the applicant's elevated liver enzymes to Hepatitis C rather than alcohol abuse.

Concluding that the applicant was not addicted to alcohol to an extent that would interfere with safe driving, the Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision and allowed the appeal.

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

The vehicle was impounded because the applicant was driving while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish due diligence, as he merely assumed his suspension had ended without verifying with the Ministry.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because alternative modes of transportation, including public transit and rides from family, were available.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicant appealed a decision by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence due to concerns about alcohol dependence.

A physician had filed a medical condition report after the applicant sought help for problem alcohol consumption.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar proved on a balance of probabilities that the applicant's alcohol dependence likely interfered with his ability to drive safely.

The decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

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

The refusal was based on the applicant's recent conviction for producing marijuana, for which he was serving an 18-month conditional sentence.

The Tribunal found that the application was premature, as the applicant had not yet completed his period of probation and had not demonstrated a sustained period of unsupervised positive conduct.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her son drove it while his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that alternative modes of transportation were available to the applicant, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under the statutory criteria.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke its registration as a lottery retailer operator.

The applicant's director had previously pled guilty to selling counterfeit sports jerseys under the Copyright Act, and police had seized over $78,000 in unexplained cash from the premises.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the conviction and the inexplicable storage of large sums of cash provided reasonable grounds to believe the applicant would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, or the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the revocation order.