OLAT 2013

The applicant appealed the impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The applicant argued that it exercised due diligence by hiring a licensed driver to replace the suspended driver, and that the suspended driver took the vehicle without authorization while the licensed driver was sleeping.

The Tribunal found that the applicant exercised due diligence by entrusting the vehicle only to the licensed driver.

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

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after lending it to a friend whose licence was suspended.

She argued she exercised due diligence by glancing at the licence and claimed exceptional hardship due to medical appointments and low income.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant failed to verify the licence expiry date and did not establish exceptional hardship because public transit was available and her medical needs were accommodated by phone.

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

The applicant had been convicted of dangerous driving and given a conditional discharge with a probation order allowing him to drive for work purposes.

He was subsequently stopped and his vehicle was impounded because his licence was suspended under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant exercised due diligence by relying on the judge's probation order and confirming it with legal counsel.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The applicant rental car company appealed the 180-day impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it exercised due diligence by visually checking the renter's driver's licence.

The renter's licence was suspended due to a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to exercise due diligence, noting it accepted licences at face value and had not implemented policies to verify validity despite previous impoundments.

The appeal was dismissed and the 180-day impoundment was confirmed.

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

The suspension was initiated after a police officer, who stopped the applicant for erratic driving, recorded an unqualified medical opinion that the applicant suffered from Huntington's Disease.

The applicant's family physician of 15 years provided medical reports confirming the applicant had never been diagnosed with Huntington's Disease and was medically fit to drive safely.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found a total lack of medical information to support the police officer's opinion and concluded the applicant did not suffer from any condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision and ordered the applicant's driving privileges restored.

The applicant, a commercial truck driver, appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to downgrade his Class 'A' licence following a single seizure event.

The Registrar relied on the Medical Advisory Committee's recommendation that the applicant's venous angiomas posed an ongoing seizure risk, requiring a five-year seizure-free period.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had suffered a solitary, provoked seizure likely caused by environmental factors at work, and preferred the treating neurologist's opinion that the applicant was at low risk for recurrence.

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

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 friend, whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction, was found driving it.

The applicant argued that she did not know the driver was suspended and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the driver was indeed suspended at the time and that the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship because alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit and taxis, were available to her.

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

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a consent order without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, imposing conditions on the applicant's registration as a salesperson, including restrictions on his trading activities, disclosure requirements, and compliance with his probation order.

The applicant appealed the Director's proposal to revoke and amend the licence of the Giizhikaandag Healing Centre.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a consent order without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, under which the appeal was withdrawn, the applicant agreed to the revocation of the licence, and the applicant agreed to comply with statutory record-keeping requirements.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on a medical condition report indicating drug dependence and a loss of consciousness.

The applicant had collapsed at home and was taken to the hospital, where an emergency room physician suspected opiate addiction.

However, evidence from the applicant's family physician and subsequent drug screens showed no drug dependency, and the only opiate present was a prescribed medication for a shoulder injury.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not addicted to alcohol or drugs to an extent that would interfere with safe driving.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

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.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's brother drove it while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had access to a rental vehicle paid for by her brother, meaning an alternative was available.

As 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 the impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by his son at the time it was detained and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony credible that he had forbidden his son from driving the vehicle and had hidden the keys.

The Tribunal concluded that the vehicle was taken without consent and therefore 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act.

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

The applicants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the individual applicant's past conduct, which included convictions for issuing improper Safety Standards Certificates and failing to disclose these convictions and previous Tribunal proceedings on the registration applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicants' past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal also found that the applicants made false statements in their applications.

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

The applicant motor vehicle dealer appealed a Notice of Order to Cease False Advertising issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a Consent Order without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the Consent Order, requiring the dealer to cease advertising false or misleading statements regarding guaranteed trade-in allowances, submit advertisements for pre-approval for two months, and comply with the Act and its regulations.

The applicants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke and suspend their motor vehicle dealer registration.

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 ordered the proceedings concluded based on the agreed terms, which included strict conditions on the applicants' registration, books and records, premises, and disclosure obligations.

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

The vehicle was impounded after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had alternative vehicles available for its business operations, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's boyfriend drove it while his licence was suspended for life due to a criminal conviction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had alternative modes of transportation available, such as rides from neighbours and Community Care, and therefore failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The Applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension followed a failed Mini Mental State Examination and a report from his family physician.

Over three years, the Applicant failed six road tests and his geriatrician's diagnosis changed from mild cognitive impairment to mild dementia.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant suffers from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The applicant applied for a liquor licence for an outdoor patio accommodating 18 persons.

The adjacent business owner objected, arguing the patio would exacerbate existing parking shortages and second-hand smoke issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the patio might increase existing problems, it did not create new ones, and the patio had been approved by the City.

The objector failed to prove that granting the licence was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence, subject to a condition prohibiting smoking on the patio.

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

The applicant had an extremely poor safety violation rate, ranking among the worst carriers in Ontario, and failed to meet conditions imposed by the Ministry after a previous show cause meeting.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was unlikely to operate its commercial motor vehicles safely in the future and ordered the cancellation and seizure to be carried out.