OLAT 2013

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to review an application for a liquor sales licence due to written objections.

At the hearing, the applicant and the added party municipality agreed on conditions to attach to the licence, and the Registrar took no position.

The objectors did not attend.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to the agreed conditions, which included operating as a restaurant, noise control, and not operating as a nightclub.

The applicants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their warranty claims for window replacement, carpet defects, and basement insulation in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicants failed to report the window and carpet issues within the one-year warranty period and had unilaterally replaced the windows, denying the vendor the right to inspect and repair.

The Tribunal also found that the basement insulation complied with the Ontario Building Code.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal the revocation of its liquor licence.

The applicant missed the 15-day deadline to appeal after being served with a Notice of Proposal to revoke the licence due to multiple breaches of conditions, including allowing a prohibited individual on the premises.

Applying the four-factor test from Frey v. MacDonald, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove reasonable grounds for the extension.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's history of non-compliance, lack of merit to the appeal, and that the justice of the case favoured the public interest.

The motion was dismissed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant permitted her daughter's boyfriend to drive, unaware he had a lifetime driving suspension.

While the Tribunal accepted that the impoundment would cause immediate and significant financial hardship to the applicant, the appeal was dismissed because the applicant had access to alternative means of transportation, including public transit and her brother's vehicle.

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 for his son, an apprentice carpenter who needed the truck for work.

The vehicle had been impounded after the son's friend, whose licence was suspended for drinking and driving offences, was caught driving it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant failed to prove that no alternative transportation existed, as the son could get rides, hire a taxi, or rent a truck.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The applicant testified that while out of the country, they entrusted the vehicle to a friend, whose keys were subsequently taken by a suspended driver unknown to the applicant.

The Tribunal found the applicant credible and concluded the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment.

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

The Applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a medical report of an epileptic seizure.

The seizure occurred after the Applicant missed a dose of his anti-seizure medication due to temporary financial difficulties.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant had taken significant precautions to prevent future missed doses and was not suffering from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

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 the vehicle was stolen by a suspended driver and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had a relationship with the suspended driver, did not call the police when the vehicle was taken, and failed to prove the vehicle was stolen.

The Tribunal also dismissed the exceptional hardship claim, finding the applicant had alternatives to the vehicle and did not suffer significant, lasting loss.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's daughter allowed a suspended driver to operate it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative means of transportation, including a company vehicle, and that her daughter was able to use the suspended driver's vehicle to attend school.

As there was no threat to health or safety and alternatives were available, the Tribunal concluded that exceptional hardship was not established.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle under section 50.3 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after an inspection revealed that four of the six brakes on the tractor unit were out of adjustment, constituting a critical defect.

The applicant argued that the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) standards should apply and that the tractor and trailer should be considered as one vehicle with ten brakes, meaning less than 50% were defective.

The Tribunal rejected these arguments, finding no evidence that federal law or CVSA standards displaced the provincial regulatory scheme.

The Tribunal also held that under section 82.1(6) of the Act, the tractor and trailer are treated as separate vehicles.

Since four of the tractor's six brakes were defective, the 50% threshold was met.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The Registrar's refusal was based on the applicant's undischarged bankruptcy, outstanding judgment debts, past criminal convictions, and lack of full disclosure on previous applications.

The Tribunal found that while there were legitimate concerns, the applicant had made serious efforts to rehabilitate himself.

The Tribunal concluded that registration could be granted with appropriate conditions to protect the public and directed the parties to make submissions on those conditions.

The 83-year-old applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a syncopal episode.

Medical reports indicated the applicant suffered from critical calcific aortic stenosis and was at risk of sudden death.

The applicant refused aortic valve surgery and argued his fainting was due to a vitamin deficiency.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding the applicant failed to provide requested medical information and remained a possible road hazard due to his cardiac condition.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's former girlfriend, who lived with the applicant, was caught driving it while her licence was suspended.

The applicant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the vehicle was not stolen as the applicant acquiesced to its use, and that the applicant failed to prove there was no alternative transportation available to establish exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her spouse was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The applicant argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove exceptional hardship because she had alternative transportation options.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis of due diligence, finding it reasonable that the applicant relied on having previously seen her spouse's driver's licence and having attempted to add him to her insurance policy without knowing of his suspension.

The Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

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

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report indicating alcohol dependence.

The applicant failed to complete a required Substance Abuse Assessment Form and had a history of alcohol-related driving suspensions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Ministry acted correctly and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The Applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a medical report of a seizure.

The Applicant argued she had a panic attack, not a seizure, and her neurologist supported this, noting she had been seizure-free since 2011.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Applicant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and set aside the suspension.

The Applicant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspending her driver's licence for medical reasons.

The Applicant suffered a grand mal seizure following a traumatic subdural hematoma.

The Registrar suspended her licence based on the CCMTA Medical Standards, which require a 6-month seizure-free period after the provoking factor is corrected.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not yet completed the required 6-month seizure-free period.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to maintain the suspension.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming regarding an application for additional licensed areas at Fynn's of Temple Bar.

Following a pre-hearing, the Licence Appeal Tribunal approved the application subject to conditions, including restrictions on amplified sound and notification requirements for future condition removal applications.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was taken without her consent by her suspended common-law spouse and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the vehicle was not stolen, as the applicant left the keys accessible despite knowing of the suspension.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim, noting that the applicant had access to alternative transportation through family members.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The applicant had previously achieved a 12-month period of abstinence and had her licence reinstated, but a follow-up medical report indicated she had relapsed and was consuming alcohol again.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant remained addicted to alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence until the applicant could demonstrate another 12-month period of total abstinence.