OLAT 2013

The applicant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for serving liquor after 2:00 a.m. and failing to remove evidence of drinking before 2:45 a.m.

At the hearing, the applicant admitted the allegations but requested a reduction in the penalty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that under subsection 14.1(7) of the Alcohol and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996, it only has jurisdiction to confirm or set aside the monetary penalty, not to vary it.

The Tribunal confirmed the monetary penalty.

The applicants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to suspend their 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 the consent order, incorporating terms that restrict the applicants' ability to take motor vehicles on consignment and require compliance with the Act and regulations.

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

The applicant's driver's licence was suspended in the United States for impaired driving, and she was stopped at the Canadian border.

She claimed hardship because her daughter required the vehicle to attend after-school tutoring.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that alternatives were available for the daughter's schooling and that the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship on a balance of probabilities.

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

The Applicant's previous registration was revoked in 2006, resulting in a Consent Order prohibiting his involvement in a specific dealership.

In his new application, he failed to disclose a 2011 conviction for making a false statement under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to provide full disclosure and breached the 2006 Consent Order by continuing to be involved with the dealership.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposal to Refuse Registration.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by his father at the time it was detained.

The applicant had left the vehicle and keys with his father, whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the vehicle was stolen, noting the lack of corroborating evidence and the applicant's admission that he did not need the vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The parties reached a written settlement and applied for a consent order to dispose of the proceedings without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the consent order, concluding the proceedings on the terms set out in the settlement.

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 had been driven by the applicant's son, whose licence was suspended for a drinking and driving offence.

The applicant sought the vehicle's release to avoid impoundment fees and the potential loss of a pending sale of the vehicle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment, finding that the applicant owned other vehicles and therefore had an alternative to the impounded vehicle, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to review its application for a liquor sales licence for a restaurant located on the ground floor of a residential condominium building.

Several residents objected to the application, citing concerns about potential noise, safety, and disorderly behaviour.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the residents' concerns about noise transmission were reasonable, they did not establish that issuing the licence was contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the licence subject to strict conditions, including restricted hours of operation, a prohibition on live amplified music and karaoke, and the requirement to operate as a restaurant.

The applicant appealed a 90-day Administrative Driver's Licence Suspension imposed after he failed to provide a breath sample.

He argued that he was unable to provide the sample due to acute bronchitis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that a medical condition precluded his compliance with the breath demand.

The suspension was confirmed.

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.

The suspension followed two involuntary hospital admissions for paranoia and acute psychosis, which resulted in a physician submitting a form 203 indicating she could not drive safely.

The Applicant provided no medical evidence to the Tribunal to demonstrate fitness to drive or insight into her condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant's mental health issues were likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the Registrar's decision.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the applicants' liquor licence for 60 days following a fatal motor vehicle accident caused by an intoxicated patron who had been drinking at the licensed premises.

The Tribunal found that the licensee permitted liquor to be sold to a person who appeared to be intoxicated and permitted drunkenness on the premises, as the bar was understaffed, patrons were buying rounds for each other, and the bartender failed to monitor consumption.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegation that the licensee failed to deter disorderly conduct in the vicinity of the premises, finding insufficient evidence that the disorderly conduct occurred on the property.

The Tribunal invited written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following two syncopal episodes or possible seizures.

The Registrar suspended the licence after receiving a Medical Condition Report from a physician.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar acted properly in continuing the suspension until the applicant provides complete medical information, including a description of the episodes, cause, and treatment recommendations, as required by the medical standards for driving.

The decision of the Registrar was confirmed.

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

Her husband, whose licence was suspended, took the vehicle while intoxicated and was involved in an accident.

The applicant argued that the loss of the vehicle caused hardship for her and her daughter.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had access to alternative transportation through her mother and friends, and that her daughter could take the bus to school.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove exceptional hardship on a balance of probabilities and confirmed the impoundment.

The applicant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for a contravention of section 43 of Ontario Regulation 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act.

The dispute centered on whether the applicant's patio exceeded its licensed capacity of 214 patrons during an inspection.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the AGCO inspectors, who conducted actual counts, over the estimates provided by the applicant's staff.

The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the patio was over capacity and confirmed the monetary penalty.

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 applicant's ex-husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The applicant argued the vehicle was stolen, as she had forbidden her ex-husband from driving it and left the keys at home for her landlord while she was out of the country.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that the vehicle was taken without her consent and found that it met the definition of 'stolen' for the purposes of the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the applicant's registration as a lottery retailer.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Registrar alleged that the applicant breached its terms of registration by allowing the sole director's husband, who was explicitly prohibited from involvement, to manage the lottery account and sell lottery products.

The Tribunal found that the applicant breached the terms of registration and rejected the director's claim that she misunderstood the terms.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal and revoke the applicant's registration.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of Lifetime General as a motor vehicle dealer and to refuse registration to LTG Auto Sales Ltd. and Ahmed Salami as a salesperson, citing financial irresponsibility and failure to disclose a personal judgment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's personal debt and inadvertent failure to disclose did not afford reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to grant and continue the registrations subject to terms and conditions, including mandatory disclosure and completion of a certification course.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle inspection mechanic under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Director alleged that the Applicant had issued inspection certificates without performing proper inspections and signed certificates on behalf of the licensee without authorization.

The Tribunal found the Applicant's testimony contradictory and concluded that his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not act in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal ordered the Director to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The Applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a diagnosis of alcohol dependence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed medical evidence, including normal liver function tests and letters of support indicating the Applicant's reduced alcohol consumption and responsible behavior regarding driving after drinking.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the Applicant suffered from a medical disability likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and ordered the Registrar's decision be set aside.

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

The Registrar alleged the Applicant made false statements on his application and that his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to disclose a past criminal conviction and a suspended driver's licence on his application.

Furthermore, the Applicant had acted as an unregistered salesperson, operated a non-compliant website, and advertised vehicles without disclosing dealer information.

The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's pattern of non-compliance demonstrated he would not carry on business in accordance with the law, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.