OLAT 2013

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a funeral director.

The Registrar alleged the applicant exhibited inappropriate conduct towards women and took and shared unethical photographs of deceased persons, including Canadian soldiers, while working at a funeral establishment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the testimony of the Registrar's key witnesses to be unreliable, contradictory, and lacking credibility.

Conversely, the applicant's character witnesses provided credible testimony supporting his professionalism and integrity.

The Tribunal concluded there was no convincing evidence that the applicant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of its tow truck under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after an employee, who was not an authorized driver, drove it while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove that the impoundment caused an immediate, significant, and lasting financial impact.

The appeal was dismissed and 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 being driven by a suspended driver.

The applicant claimed she needed the vehicle for her two-hour commute to work and to complete her hairdressing certificate.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had an alternative mode of transportation (public transit) and therefore did not meet the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was taken without permission by her son, a suspended driver, while she was hospitalized.

The applicant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because she lives in a rural area without public transit and needs the vehicle for medical appointments upon her discharge.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that no reasonable alternative transportation was available and that depriving the applicant of her vehicle would threaten her health.

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

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

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to substantiate the claim that the vehicle was stolen, as no police report was made.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as Ministry records indicated the applicant owned a second vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealer and two salespersons following criminal convictions related to operating a 'chop shop' and possession of property obtained by crime.

The parties reached a resolution and jointly requested a consent order waiving a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the Notice of Proposal in accordance with the agreed terms, which included the withdrawal of appeals by the dealer and one salesperson, and strict conditions on the remaining salesperson's registration.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of a travel wholesaler for failing to file financial statements, lacking a properly designated manager, and failing to operate from an approved dwelling.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

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

The Tribunal issued the consent order, incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, which required the applicant to file audited financial statements, maintain minimum working capital, and comply with other regulatory requirements.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of the corporate applicant as a motor vehicle dealer and the individual applicant as a salesperson, alleging they breached conditions of their registrations by allowing an unregistered individual to be involved in their business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar failed to provide clear and convincing proof of the alleged breaches.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicants' past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal.

The Applicants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims for several alleged defects in their new home, which had suffered fire damage prior to possession.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed claims regarding a wood frame sill plate overhang, smoke stains, missing anchor bolts, a brick overhang, and malfunctioning garage doors.

The Tribunal found that the sill plate overhang and the brick overhang violated the Ontario Building Code and constituted warranted defects, ordering Tarion to pay $1,020.00 for their repair.

The remaining claims, including a request for reimbursement of engineering fees, were dismissed for lack of evidence or lack of jurisdiction.

The Applicants brought a motion for an interim order permitting them to carry on business as a motor vehicle dealer pending a hearing into the Registrar's proposal to refuse their registration renewal.

The Applicants had filed their renewal application two days after the expiry date.

They argued that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant interim registration based on statutory interpretation, natural justice, and the power to prevent abuse of process.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no denial of natural justice or abuse of process, and concluding it lacked jurisdiction to substantively vary the Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration into a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration.

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

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

The applicant claimed he needed the vehicle for his scrap metal business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had mitigated his income loss by finding temporary work and therefore had an alternative to the vehicle, failing to meet the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship.

The applicants, Ahmed Elbasiouni and VD Auto Trader Inc., and the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 applied for a consent order without a hearing to resolve a Notice of Proposal to refuse and revoke registrations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, which restricted the dealer to the 'Wholesaler' class of registration for two years and imposed various compliance, disclosure, and record-keeping conditions.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's son allowed an acquaintance to drive it, and the acquaintance was found to be driving with a suspended license.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for exceptional hardship or due diligence.

However, because the applicant did not give the acquaintance permission to drive the vehicle, the Tribunal found that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

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 from the applicant's physician indicating alcohol dependence and a significant risk to safe driving.

The applicant failed to submit a required Substance Abuse Assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Registrar was justified in suspending the licence and confirmed the decision.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to revoke the applicant's liquor licence following a serious stabbing incident on the premises.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant breached licence conditions regarding security cameras and a compliance plan, and failed to maintain control over the premises.

However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant permitted the violent conduct, as he attempted to intervene.

The Tribunal concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe the applicant would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and requested submissions on the appropriate sanction for the established breaches.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a road rage incident.

The suspension was based on a medical condition report indicating unstable bipolar disorder.

The applicant provided medical evidence from his psychiatrist confirming his condition was stable and supporting the reinstatement of his licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant met the CCMTA guidelines for licensure in psychiatric illness and that his condition was unlikely to show instability.

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

The applicant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend her driver's licence due to a Medical Condition Report indicating drug dependence.

The applicant had been enrolled in a pain program and later a methadone clinic.

The Registrar requested detailed, up-to-date medical information from her treating physician, which the applicant failed to provide.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffers from drug dependence likely to interfere with her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The applicant employer appealed the impoundment of its commercial vehicle after an employee was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The applicant argued for release based on due diligence and exceptional hardship under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the exceptional hardship claim due to lack of evidence but granted the appeal on the basis of due diligence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's practice of checking driver abstracts every six months was reasonable for a small seasonal business, and that an abstract pulled on the day the employee was recalled to work would have shown a valid licence.

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

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

The applicant claimed she needed the vehicle for work and could not afford impoundment fees.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had an alternative mode of transportation, as she moved in with a friend who drove her to work.

Since 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 decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons related to alcohol abuse and dependence.

The Ministry of Transportation required the applicant to undergo a Drive Able assessment based on a physician's report noting neuromuscular coordination issues and an inability to walk a straight line.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had maintained abstinence for over a year, his liver function tests were normal, and his walking difficulties were due to chronic back pain rather than a condition that would significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

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