OLAT 2013

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's brother allowed a third party with a suspended licence to drive it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant failed to prove exceptional hardship because he was able to get rides to work and owned a second vehicle that his sister was using.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence and would suffer exceptional hardship.

The applicant had left her vehicle with a licenced driver (her boyfriend's brother) to drive her to the hospital, but a suspended driver (her boyfriend) ended up driving it without her knowledge.

The Tribunal found that the applicant exercised due diligence by entrusting the vehicle to a licenced driver and could not have predicted or controlled the suspended driver's actions.

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

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to medical reasons.

The suspension was initiated after an emergency room physician reported that the applicant experienced multiple episodes of supraventricular tachycardia and was at high risk of losing consciousness while driving.

The applicant subsequently provided a report from her cardiologist, who concluded that her condition did not cause presyncopal symptoms and supported the reinstatement of her licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer from a physical condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and ordered the Registrar's decision be set aside.

The Applicant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed for refusing to provide a breath sample.

The Applicant argued he was unable to provide a sample due to a medical reason, specifically a head injury sustained during an alleged assault and an incidental arachnoid cyst.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was rational, understood the consequences of his refusal, and made a conscious decision not to provide a breath sample.

The medical evidence did not establish that his condition prevented him from complying with the demand.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing he exercised due diligence because he was unaware his brother-in-law's licence was suspended when the brother-in-law took the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the applicant left the vehicle and keys at his sister's residence without imposing restrictions, despite the brother-in-law having a lifetime licence suspension since 2004.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable steps to ensure the driver was licensed, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the 45-day impoundment.

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 allowed an acquaintance of three weeks to drive it, and police discovered his licence was suspended.

The applicant argued she exercised due diligence by visually checking the licence and claimed exceptional hardship due to needing the vehicle for work and family transport.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant did not exercise due diligence by lending the vehicle to someone she barely knew without further checks, and that no exceptional hardship existed because she owned other vehicles.

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

The applicant argued that the driver's licence was not suspended and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because the vehicle was rented using a stolen credit card.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the driver's licence was indeed suspended at the time of the stop.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the applicant owned other vehicles and failed to provide evidence of immediate, significant, and lasting loss.

The applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for defective windows in their new home.

The windows developed water between the panes shortly after possession.

The applicants reported the issue within the first year, but Tarion denied the claim for windows listed in the second-year form, arguing they were reported out of time.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the underlying defect was reported on time and the legislation should be given a fair, broad, and liberal interpretation.

The Tribunal awarded $4,050 for the replaced and currently defective windows, but dismissed the claim for windows that had not yet failed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the motor vehicle dealer and salesperson registrations of the applicants.

The applicants appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the individual applicant had misrepresented his father's identity to an inspector and admitted that his father was acting as a bookkeeper for the dealership, in direct breach of a prior Consent Order prohibiting the father's involvement.

The Tribunal concluded that the Registrar met the onus of establishing reasonable grounds for belief that the applicants would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to cognitive impairment.

The suspension was based on a medical condition report from the applicant's family physician, which noted a Montreal Cognitive Assessment score of 16/30 and moderate cognitive impairment of undetermined cause.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffers from a mental condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class G and Class DF driver's licences due to a reported seizure.

Medical evidence initially suggested an unprovoked seizure, but subsequent neurological assessments confirmed the applicant's two lifetime seizures were provoked by binge drinking and sleep deprivation, not epilepsy.

The applicant's family physician confirmed he does not suffer from alcohol dependence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant does not suffer from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and ordered the Registrar's decision set aside, reinstating the licences.

The Applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a medical condition report indicating schizophrenia and active paranoid delusions.

The Applicant failed to provide requested medical information to the Registrar, claiming he was not mentally ill and was the victim of a conspiracy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the Applicant lacked insight into his condition and must supply the requested medical information before his driving privileges could be considered for restoration.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant had alternative modes of transportation, as she owned another vehicle and her son assisted her with transportation to medical appointments.

Because an alternative existed, the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to revoke his motor vehicle inspection station licence and mechanic's registration under the Highway Traffic Act.

At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant withdrew his appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal accepted the withdrawal, resulting in the immediate revocation of the licence and registration.

The applicant appealed a proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to refuse his applications for a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS) licence and an MVIS mechanic registration.

The Director's proposal was based on the applicant's past conduct, which included numerous convictions and warnings for failing to submit required rebuilt vehicle files and operating from an unlicensed location.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had repeatedly failed to comply with the requirements of the Mandatory Branding Program despite being given multiple chances.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not operate the business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity, and directed the Director to carry out the proposal to refuse the registrations.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of their motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

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

The applicant, who receives Ontario Disability Support Payments and lives below the poverty line, testified that they had no adequate alternative transportation and were stuck at home.

The Tribunal found that no alternative transportation existed and that the loss of the vehicle caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons due to alcohol dependence.

The applicant's physician and an addiction specialist reported his alcohol dependence and recommended abstinence.

The applicant reduced his drinking but refused to abstain completely.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence indicated an alcohol addiction likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The applicant sought to extend its existing indoor liquor licence to an outdoor sidewalk patio.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving an objection.

The objector raised concerns about sidewalk accessibility for the elderly and handicapped, but did not object to the sale of alcohol itself.

The municipality supported the application and confirmed the patio met all requirements.

The Tribunal found the objector failed to prove that issuing the licence was not in the public interest, and directed the Registrar to issue the licence.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to review its application for a liquor licence to serve alcohol at a municipal concession stand in a public park.

Several community members objected, arguing that alcohol consumption in a family park would expose children to inappropriate behaviour and increase crime.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that issuing the licence was against the public interest.

The Tribunal noted the municipality's support, the lack of police objection, and the applicant's proposed security measures.

The application was approved subject to conditions, including a two-drink maximum and the use of red plastic cups.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002.

The Registrar sent the proposal by email and regular mail on December 21, but the applicant received actual notice on December 28 and filed his appeal within 15 days of that date.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was filed in a timely manner because there were no statutory rules deeming service by email, making the date of actual notice the effective date.

In the alternative, the Tribunal applied the four-part test from Manuel and granted an extension of time, noting the short delay, lack of prejudice, and the applicant's bona fide intention to appeal.