OLAT 2013

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to refuse its application for a liquor licence.

The sole director of the Applicant was previously the manager of another establishment that had its licence suspended multiple times and ultimately revoked for permitting drunkenness, removing liquor, and allowing a drug transaction.

The Tribunal found that the director's past conduct and failure to ensure compliance at the previous establishment afforded reasonable grounds to believe the Applicant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal refusing the licence.

The applicants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation to disallow a claim under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The parties reached a settlement and sought an order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to s. 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order requiring Tarion to pay the applicants a total of $20,000 in full and final settlement of the claims, and closed the file.

The applicant appealed the Registrar's decision to refuse a licence to operate a retirement home.

The Registrar cited concerns including resident neglect, lack of required policies, untrained staff, and the owner's attempts to mislead inspectors and the regulator.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate competence to operate the home responsibly and with honesty and integrity, as required by section 35 of the Retirement Homes Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the Registrar's decision to refuse the licence.

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

The Registrar's proposal was based on the applicant's prior criminal conviction for using forged documents to obtain a loan, a consumer proposal, and concerns about his honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal found the applicant's explanation of his criminal charge lacked credibility and noted his lack of candour during the hearing.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The Applicant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial Class D driver's licence to a Class G licence following a reported seizure.

The Applicant argued that he had not been formally diagnosed with epilepsy and that a one-year seizure-free period should suffice.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant's documented history of recurrent seizures met the definition of epilepsy under the applicable medical standards, which require a five-year seizure-free period for commercial drivers.

The Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision.

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

The Registrar required a six-month seizure-free period before considering reinstatement.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had been seizure-free since his last episode and, despite his denial of an epilepsy diagnosis, did not currently suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was allowed and the suspension was set aside.

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

The suspension followed a Medical Condition Report indicating periods of confusion, and subsequent psychiatric reports diagnosing schizophrenia or a related psychotic disorder with a history of medication noncompliance.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant suffers from a condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision, noting that a longer period of treatment and stability was required before reinstatement.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Board of Funeral Services' Complaints Committee declining to refer her complaint against a funeral director to the Discipline Committee.

The applicant alleged she was improperly excluded from her mother's funeral arrangements due to a family dispute.

The Tribunal found that the funeral director acted reasonably in a difficult situation and that the matter did not warrant referral to the Discipline Committee.

The Tribunal directed the Complaints Committee to carry out its original proposal and recommendations.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's sub-contractor was caught driving it while suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant failed to exercise due diligence by not verifying the driver's licence status before handing over the vehicle.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim, noting the availability of alternative transportation and the lack of documented proof of significant, long-lasting business losses.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by the applicant's brother, whose licence was suspended.

The applicant testified that her brother took the vehicle without her knowledge or consent and expressed willingness to lay theft charges against him.

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 a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims regarding a new home purchased from the builder.

The applicant alleged unauthorized substitutions and workmanship defects, including smaller windows, an improperly placed kitchen window, unsealed granite tiles, a glued subfloor, and a non-functional closet.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed most of the claims for lack of evidence that the builder breached the agreement or provided inferior substitutions.

However, the Tribunal allowed the claim regarding the bedroom closet, finding that the inward-swinging door rendered it non-functional and constituted a defect in workmanship.

Tarion was ordered to pay $1,700 plus HST to rectify the closet.

The applicant, a commercial heavy equipment operator with Type II diabetes, appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his Class AZ driver's licence to a Class G licence following an isolated hypoglycemic episode.

The applicant admitted the episode was caused by his failure to eat a snack at the proper time.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had insight into the event, had diligently completed required medical monitoring, and was supported by his family physician.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and ordered the reinstatement of his Class AZ licence.

The applicant appealed a proposal by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to refuse its registration.

The parties reached a settlement and sought a consent order disposing of the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, incorporating the agreed terms and conditions, which included strict limitations on the involvement of a specific individual in the dealership's operations.

The applicant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims for their new home.

The claims related to honeycombing in the concrete foundation and a hairline crack in a foundation repair.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the honeycombing had been repaired in a workmanlike manner and was merely a cosmetic issue.

The Tribunal also found that the hairline crack was a result of normal shrinkage and did not exceed the allowable guidelines.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claims.

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

The Registrar alleged the Applicant would not carry on business in accordance with the law or with integrity and honesty, citing the Applicant's purchase and sale of counterfeit TTC tokens and two convictions for selling cigarettes to minors.

The Tribunal found the Applicant engaged in an illicit transaction to purchase the tokens and failed to exercise good judgment.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's proposal to revoke the registration.

The applicant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming.

At the hearing, the Registrar advised that further information had been made available and the Order of Monetary Penalty was withdrawn.

The Tribunal concluded the matter and closed the file.

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

The applicant's partner, who has severe physical and mental disabilities, relies on the applicant to drive him to numerous medical appointments.

The Tribunal found that there was no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle and that the loss of the vehicle presented a threat to the partner's health and safety.

The appeal was allowed on the ground of exceptional hardship, and the Registrar was ordered to release the motor vehicle.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming regarding a liquor licence application.

Following a pre-hearing, the applicant and public interest objectors agreed to a set of conditions to attach to the licence.

The objectors withdrew their objections, and the Tribunal approved the liquor licence application subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued an order imposing two $1,000 monetary penalties against the applicant licence holder for permitting drunkenness on its premises on two separate occasions.

On appeal, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found that on the first occasion, the patron was drunk and the applicant knew or ought to have known of the intoxication, confirming the penalty.

On the second occasion, while the patron was found to be drunk, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant knew or ought to have known, as the determinative actions occurred in the washroom away from staff.

The Tribunal confirmed the first penalty and set aside the second.

The applicant appealed a $1,000 monetary penalty imposed by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for permitting drunkenness on its licensed premises.

Inspectors observed a patron who had vomited, passed out, and exhibited signs of severe intoxication.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the patron was drunk and that the applicant's security staff, who walked by the patron multiple times without intervening, knew or ought to have known of his condition.

The appeal was dismissed and the monetary penalty was confirmed.