OLAT 2014

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's friend, who was driving, was found to have a suspended licence for a blood alcohol concentration above .05.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by asking his friend if he had his licence, though he did not ask to see it.

He also argued exceptional hardship due to a potential job offer.

The Tribunal found the appellant did not exercise due diligence as he failed to ask to see the licence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had no firm job offer and had not explored all reasonable alternatives to the vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend her driver's licence due to a medical report indicating uncontrolled narcolepsy.

The appellant argued that her sleep issues were caused by medication timing and that she had not experienced a sleep attack since October 2013.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision, finding that the CCMTA medical standards require a 12-month period of stability without daytime sleep attacks before a suspension can be lifted.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) denying a portion of his claim against the compensation fund for travel services paid for but not provided.

TICO had reimbursed the portion of the payment supported by a receipt but denied the remaining $1,790 paid in cash without a receipt.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal accepted the appellant's credible oral testimony and circumstantial evidence as sufficient proof of the $1,790 payment.

The Tribunal ordered TICO to reimburse the appellant for the remaining amount.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his Class A driver's licence to a Class G licence following a single unprovoked seizure.

The Minister required the appellant to remain seizure-free for five years before restoring his commercial driving privileges, in accordance with CCMTA medical standards.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's structural brain abnormality placed him at an increased risk for recurrent seizures.

The Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision, concluding that the appellant suffered from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a commercial vehicle.

The appellant 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 appellant allowed a friend, whose licence was suspended for life due to a Criminal Code conviction, to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to using the impounded vehicle, such as public transit, taxis, and assistance from family members.

As the appellant failed to establish that no alternatives existed, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The 73-year-old appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to mild cognitive impairment.

Following a report from his family physician and a geriatrician's cognitive assessment, the Registrar required a functional driving evaluation.

The appellant failed two separate driving evaluations, with evaluators noting significant safety concerns and recommending driving cessation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant lacked insight into his cognitive decline and that his condition significantly interfered with his ability to drive safely.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no exceptional hardship because the appellant had purchased an alternative vehicle.

The Tribunal also rejected the stolen vehicle claim, finding the appellant acquiesced to the suspended driver's use of the vehicle by leaving the keys readily available.

The appellant applied for an additional capacity of 42 persons for its outdoor patio.

Area residents and the City of Toronto objected, citing ongoing noise issues that disrupted the peaceable enjoyment of their properties.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors met the onus of establishing that granting the additional capacity was not in the public interest, given the history of noise complaints and the patio's location in a residential neighbourhood.

The application was denied.

The Appellant's driver's licence was suspended by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles after he experienced a hypoglycemic reaction while driving, resulting in a collision.

The Registrar required a six-month period without a hypoglycemic episode before reinstating the licence, relying on CCMTA guidelines.

The Appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant, an insulin-dependent diabetic with a long history of excellent control, was highly unlikely to have another episode and that his condition did not significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

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

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship and that the vehicle was taken without his consent.

The Tribunal found that the appellant, who lived in an isolated area and required the vehicle to prepare for an upcoming hip replacement surgery, would suffer exceptional hardship beyond mere inconvenience.

The Tribunal set aside the impoundment and ordered the vehicle released.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The refusal was based on the Appellant's failure to disclose his recent criminal convictions, including assault causing bodily harm, impaired driving, and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order, on his application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant made false statements and serious omissions on his application, which afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

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

The Registrar proposed to revoke the registration of the Applicant, a real estate salesperson, on the grounds that his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The allegations involved three properties where the Applicant engaged in self-dealing, failed to disclose offers to his clients, facilitated dubious transactions, and profited from artificially inflated resale prices.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant acted contrary to his clients' interests, participated in transactions indicative of mortgage fraud, and failed to demonstrate honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal concluded that conditions on his registration would not adequately protect the public and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke his registration.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded under the Highway Traffic Act after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal more than two months after the 15-day deadline and brought a motion for an extension of time.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test for extending time and found the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also noted the appeal had little reasonable chance of success on the merits of exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to public transit.

The motion for an extension of time was denied and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by asking the driver if he was legal to drive, and claimed exceptional hardship due to her employment and childcare responsibilities.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship as she had alternative transportation options.

The Tribunal also found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by merely asking the driver if he was legal to drive without requesting to see his licence.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, which cancelled its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate due to a poor safety record.

The appellant did not appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal reviewed the evidence of the appellant's staggering number of convictions, unacceptable out-of-service inspections, unpaid fines, and failed facility audit.

The Tribunal confirmed the Cancellation and Seizure Order.

The appellant sought to appeal an order impounding a trailer for critical brake defects and brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant lacked standing to appeal because it was not the registered owner of the trailer, as required by section 50.3(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal also noted that the relevant time for determining a critical defect is at the time of inspection, not after repairs are made.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a medical report of a blackout related to alcohol abuse.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the appellant had a history of alcohol dependence and failed to submit required medical evidence confirming a 12-month period of abstinence and normal biochemical markers.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles after she suffered a second grand mal seizure.

The appellant appealed the suspension to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had been prescribed anti-epileptic medication which was likely to be effective in preventing further seizures.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her son, whose licence was suspended for a drinking and driving conviction, drove her to the hospital.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence in verifying her son's licence status.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not meet the criteria for exceptional hardship because alternative transportation, including public transit and assistance from family members, was available.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicant homeowner brought an omnibus pre-hearing motion seeking summary judgment, an order extending warranties, oral discovery, and further disclosure regarding a claim for water penetration in their new home's basement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act to grant the substantive relief sought on a pre-hearing motion.

The Tribunal also declined to exercise its procedural discretion to order further particulars or oral discovery, noting the respondent had already made fulsome disclosure and oral discovery is not provided for in the Tribunal's Rules.