OLAT 2014

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order from the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming refusing her registration as a Category 2 gaming assistant.

The Registrar based the refusal on the Applicant's past criminal convictions, failure to disclose 2006 convictions on her application, outstanding debts, and unfiled tax returns.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant's failure to disclose the 2006 convictions was an unintentional oversight and gave little weight to the hearsay evidence regarding police reports.

Considering her exemplary employment record at a bingo hall over the past four years and her rehabilitation from drug addiction, the Tribunal concluded her past conduct could be excused and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposed order.

The Applicant applied for a liquor licence for its restaurant.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents regarding parking, noise, and safety.

The Tribunal found that the objector's concerns primarily related to the existence of the restaurant itself, which was permitted by zoning, rather than the sale of alcohol.

The Tribunal concluded that the public interest would be best served by directing the Registrar to issue the licence subject to conditions limiting the hours of alcohol service and requiring the Applicant to provide a contact number for complaints and post signs asking patrons to respect the neighbourhood.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by his son, whose licence was suspended for Criminal Code driving offences.

The applicant, who was vacationing out of the country, argued he exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant provided insufficient evidence of due diligence and failed to demonstrate that the impoundment posed a threat to health or safety or caused exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The Applicant, 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 sudden collapse and suspected seizure.

The Tribunal reviewed conflicting medical evidence regarding whether the Applicant's collapse and subsequent shaking were caused by a seizure disorder or a cardiac event (sick sinus syndrome) for which he received a pacemaker.

Finding that the Applicant had no prior history of seizures, had been seizure-free for 11 months, and was compliant with medication, the Tribunal concluded he did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Minister's decision was set aside.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a driver whose licence was suspended for impaired driving.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice.

In the absence of evidence establishing grounds for early release, the Tribunal confirmed the impoundment.

The applicants sought an extension of time to appeal a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for financial loss due to the non-completion of their new home.

The applicants missed the 15-day appeal deadline and delayed six months before notifying Tarion of their intent to appeal, after discovering additional cancelled cheques.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate a firm intention to appeal throughout the delay period, and that the merits of the case were not overwhelming enough to outweigh this failure.

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

The seizure was reportedly triggered by alcohol and cocaine use.

The Registrar required a Substance Abuse Assessment and confirmation of abstinence, which the applicant failed to provide.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar was justified in suspending the licence and continuing the suspension until the required medical information was submitted.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar's decision 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.

The suspension was based on a physician's Medical Condition Report indicating alcohol dependence following a motor vehicle accident while intoxicated.

The Applicant failed to provide the required Substance Abuse Assessment form or medical evidence of abstinence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision, finding the Applicant had not met the onus to prove she was not addicted to alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The applicants, a motor vehicle dealer and its principal, brought a motion for further documentary disclosure from the Registrar in an appeal of a proposal to suspend their registrations.

The Tribunal held that while its own rules only require disclosure of documents a party intends to rely on, the Stinchcombe principles of disclosure apply in administrative proceedings where a registrant faces suspension or revocation of their livelihood.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to disclose all relevant, non-privileged documents, erring on the side of inclusion, but dismissed the applicants' request to review the Registrar's files themselves or obtain names of former employees.

The applicants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their motor vehicle dealer registrations.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the consent order, concluding the proceedings on the basis of extensive terms and conditions agreed to by the parties, including compliance with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, maintaining proper books and records, and a two-year prohibition on consignment sales.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence based on a medical condition report indicating alcohol dependence.

The applicant failed to provide the required Substance Abuse Assessment form and medical evidence supporting reinstatement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision, finding that the onus was on the applicant to provide the requested information and prove she did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The applicant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspending its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) for 30 days.

The applicant had previously consented to a 30-day suspension but was found to have operated commercial motor vehicles during that period.

The applicant argued the breach was based on an honest mistake regarding the definition of a commercial motor vehicle.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, drawing an adverse inference from the failure of the applicant's manager to testify.

The Tribunal upheld the Registrar's order for a further 30-day suspension to deter future non-compliance.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal from the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to suspend its liquor licence for 14 days.

In a previous decision, the Tribunal found the applicant breached the Liquor Licence Act by selling liquor to an intoxicated person and permitting drunkenness on the premises.

The Registrar sought a 12 to 13-day suspension based on the applicant's history of non-compliance, while the applicant argued for a 2 to 3-day suspension.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's three previous violations and lack of familiarity with its own alcohol policy.

Considering that one of the original three allegations was dismissed, the Tribunal ordered an 8-day suspension of the applicant's liquor licence.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the applicant's liquor licence for 14 days.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant breached section 29 of the Liquor Licence Act by serving an intoxicated patron and subsection 45(1) of Regulation 719 by permitting drunkenness on the premises, based on the credible testimony of two police officers.

However, the Tribunal found no breach of subsection 20(1) of Regulation 719 regarding practices encouraging immoderate consumption.

The Tribunal requested written submissions regarding the appropriate sanction.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship for his family.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant was caught driving while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant and his family had alternate modes of transportation available, including a vehicle lent by the applicant's brother, public transportation, and taxis.

As an alternative to the impounded vehicle existed, the Tribunal concluded that the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met and confirmed the impoundment.

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 due to her severe medical conditions and mobility issues.

The vehicle had been impounded after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant's household had access to a second vehicle and that her brother was able to drive her to medical appointments.

Because alternatives to the impounded vehicle were available, the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship as required by the legislation.

The applicant travel agent appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to file financial statements and working capital non-compliance.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the appeal without a hearing.

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

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

The trailer was impounded after an inspection revealed a severed air hose, resulting in more than 50% of the trailer brakes being inoperative.

The applicant argued the failure was accidental due to extreme cold weather making the hose brittle.

The Tribunal distinguished a previous case involving a loose glad hand, noting that here there was an actual component failure and no evidence was provided regarding the applicant's maintenance of air hoses for cold weather conditions.

The Tribunal concluded the trailer had a critical defect at the time of inspection and confirmed the impoundment.

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

The suspension was based on a physician's report of depression and suicidal ideation following an acute episode.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's depression was linked to untreated hypothyroidism, sudden job loss, and alcohol misuse, but that his condition had since stabilized under medical care.

Concluding that the Applicant no longer posed a risk to safe driving, the Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision and reinstated the licence.

The Applicant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed for failing to provide a breath sample.

The Applicant argued he was unable to provide the sample due to severe chemical bronchitis and a viral infection.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence provided by the Applicant's physician lacked relevant information to show he was medically unable to comply at the time of the demand.

The police officer's evidence indicated the Applicant was not in distress.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.