OLAT 2014

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence.

The suspension was initiated after a physician reported an isolated seizure.

While neurological investigations cleared the appellant to drive, the Ministry maintained the suspension due to the appellant's acknowledged history of alcohol addiction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had been actively managing his addiction for ten years with only three brief relapses.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar's decision was set aside.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence due to medical concerns.

The suspension was initiated after a surgeon reported the appellant should not drive, and subsequent Mini-Mental Status Exams indicated mild dementia.

The appellant declined adjournments to obtain a functional driving assessment or further medical clearance.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that without explicit medical clearance or a functional assessment, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the appellant met the medical standards to safely operate a motor vehicle.

The Appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to refuse to issue a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station Licence and to refuse to register the individual Appellant as a Motor Vehicle Inspection Mechanic.

The Director's refusal was based on the Appellant's past conduct, including convictions for failing to keep proper records and failing to affix inspection stickers, as well as criminal convictions related to substance abuse.

The Tribunal found the Appellant to be forthright and honest, noting his efforts to address his addiction and his hiring of a bookkeeper to ensure regulatory compliance.

The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant's past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds for belief that he would not operate in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity, and ordered the Director to issue the licence and registration.

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

The parties reached a settlement and requested a Consent Order without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal ordered the proceedings concluded based on the agreed terms and conditions, which included compliance with the Act, disclosure obligations, and restrictions on the appellant's trading activities.

The Appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Appellant had failed to disclose past convictions for odometer tampering and issuing false safety certificates on his application.

He also engaged in unregistered selling of vehicles shortly before and after applying for registration.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant made a false statement and that his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal and refuse the registration.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her 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's friend was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship, as the impact of the loss would primarily affect her rather than a person ordinarily transported in the vehicle, and the vehicle was ordinarily operated by the suspended driver.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a 90-day Administrative Driver's Licence Suspension imposed after he refused to provide a breath sample.

The appellant argued he was unable to comply with the demand for a medical reason, specifically that he had recently undergone open heart surgery and feared blowing into the device would cause internal disruption.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish he was physically incapable of providing a sample, noting he had sufficient respiratory effort to tow a snowmobile off a lake.

The suspension was confirmed.

The applicant, a real estate salesperson, brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal of the Registrar's proposal to revoke his registration.

The applicant missed the 15-day deadline by four days, citing personal chaos and a failure to open couriered mail.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time, finding that the prejudice to the applicant of losing his livelihood without a hearing outweighed the marginal explanation for the delay.

However, given the applicant's history of misconduct and outstanding penalties, the Tribunal ordered the immediate suspension of his registration pending the hearing to protect the public interest.

The Appellant appealed Tarion's decision to deny her warranty claim regarding the lack of a railing around a ground floor balcony.

The Appellant argued she was promised a railing during negotiations and that the Ontario Building Code required one because the drop exceeded the regulatory minimum in one spot.

The Tribunal found that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale contained an entire agreement clause excluding prior representations, and did not require a railing.

Regarding the grading, the Tribunal found the drop exceeded the limit by a fraction of an inch in one small area, and ordered Tarion to add topsoil to bring it into compliance rather than installing a railing.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the registrations of Dickson Motor Sales and Leasing Inc. as a motor vehicle dealer and Cameron Scott Dickson as a salesperson, alleging misappropriation of funds, falsification of documents, and failure to properly record transactions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct, including an acknowledgement of producing false invoices and taking unrecorded cash, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he 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 to revoke the registrations.

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

The Ministry required the appellant to be seizure-free for five years before reinstating his commercial licence, treating the incident as evidence of epilepsy due to a prior seizure in 1995.

The Tribunal found that the 2012 seizure was provoked by a fall resulting in a skull fracture and brain contusion, and that a diagnosis of epilepsy was not appropriate.

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

The applicant appealed the 90-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The applicant argued the vehicle was stolen, he exercised due diligence, and the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the vehicle was taken with implied consent, the applicant made no effort to verify the driver's licence status, and the hardship ground was precluded due to previous impoundments.

The 90-day impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a Medical Condition Report indicating mild cognitive impairment or early dementia.

The applicant argued the reporting physician had not examined him and was not his regular doctor.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the applicant must complete a cognitive assessment with his new family doctor and potentially undergo a functional driving assessment before his driving privileges could be reconsidered, in order to ensure public safety.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle after his son was caught driving it while suspended.

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

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship because he had alternative transportation options.

However, the Tribunal found the vehicle was taken without the appellant's consent, satisfying the definition of 'stolen' for the purposes of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The appellant had experienced seizures and was diagnosed with epilepsy.

Under the applicable medical standards, commercial drivers must be seizure-free for five years.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had not been seizure-free for the required period and had shown a lack of insight by discontinuing his medication.

The appeal was dismissed and the Minister's decision was confirmed.

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

The vehicle had been driven by a person whose licence was suspended for life due to an impaired driving conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternative transportation options, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal also found the vehicle was not stolen, as the appellant had previously permitted the suspended driver to use it without verifying his licence status.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The Registrar cited the applicant's past conduct, including a fraudulent financing scheme at a previous dealership and false statements on registration applications.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had engaged in extensive frauds on financial institutions and failed to disclose collection efforts.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's past behaviour rebutted the legislative presumption of honest dealing and ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of a motor vehicle dealership and its principals.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, imposing extensive terms and conditions on the registrants regarding disclosure, record-keeping, consumer complaints, and mandatory education, in lieu of revocation.

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

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was not stolen, as implied consent was probable given the father and daughter lived together and a previous similar impoundment had occurred.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the applicant owned two other vehicles, meaning alternative transportation was available.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence in determining the driver's licence was not suspended.

The applicant testified she paid the driver's outstanding fines and was told by court staff and a Ministry of Transportation representative that there were no suspensions against the driver.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony credible and concluded she had exercised due diligence by contacting the authorities on multiple occasions.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.