OLAT 2014

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claims for water penetration, window fogging, and lack of garage truss strapping under the second-year warranty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the water penetration and window fogging issues were first-year warranty items and thus ineligible for the second-year report.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the garage strapping was not required by the Ontario Building Code in this instance and the appellants suffered no damages.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claim in full.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Minister of Transportation suspending his Class A commercial driver's licence following an unprovoked seizure in March 2013.

The appellant had previously experienced seizures in 1989 but had been seizure-free for 23 years.

The Minister reinstated his Class G licence but required a 5-year seizure-free period for the Class A licence, in accordance with the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Minister's decision, finding that the appellant suffers from a neurological condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely, and that the 5-year seizure-free standard should apply.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a restaurant.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents.

The objectors did not oppose the licence itself but sought to restrict the hours of operation past midnight due to concerns about neighbourhood noise.

The Tribunal found the objectors failed to establish that an unrestricted licence was contrary to the public interest, noting substantial community support for the application.

The Tribunal approved the licence subject to two conditions consented to by the appellant regarding community contact information and signage.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the registration of a motor vehicle dealer and its salesperson for failing to complete a mandatory certification course as required by a prior Consent Order.

The salesperson failed the course multiple times and had not fully removed himself as a directing mind of the dealership.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed the Registrar to carry out the suspension, finding it contrary to the public interest to allow the dealership to remain open while the non-compliance and ownership issues remained unresolved.

During an appeal regarding a new home warranty claim, the self-represented appellants alleged that they were being bullied by the opposing counsel and the Presiding Member.

The Presiding Member invited submissions on whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Finding no objective support for the allegations and noting that the appellants did not wish to start the hearing anew, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and continued the hearing.

The appellant appealed Tarion's decision to deny a warranty claim on the basis that the request for a conciliation inspection was not made within the statutory time limit.

The appellant argued that Tarion failed to respond to earlier correspondence and did not explicitly state that the time limits were statutory.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the homeowner information package clearly set out the deadlines and consequences of missing them, and there were no grounds to extend the time limits under the regulations.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration issued by the Registrar under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to file financial statements.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, which required the appellant to maintain its trust account, submit monthly trust reconciliations, file annual financial statements, and maintain minimum working capital.

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 was driven by a suspended driver (the appellant's employee and cousin) without permission while the appellant was away hunting.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the exceptional hardship ground because the appellant had other vehicles available.

However, the Tribunal found the appellant credible that he did not consent to the suspended driver using the vehicle, distinguishing the case from mere acquiescence.

The appeal was allowed on the basis that the vehicle was stolen, and the impoundment was set aside.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of Global Auto Care Inc. as a motor vehicle dealer and Michael Wayne Doherty as a salesperson.

The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve the matter without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal approved the Settlement Agreement and ordered the proceedings concluded on the basis of the terms and conditions set out in the agreement, which included repayment to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund and strict compliance conditions.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,500 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for allegedly exceeding the licensed indoor capacity of its establishment, contrary to section 43 of O. Reg. 719/90.

AGCO inspectors conducted walk-through counts that showed the indoor capacity of 93 was exceeded.

The appellant argued the count methodology was unreliable and that it had its own capacity controls in place.

The Tribunal found the inspectors' evidence credible and reliable, concluding that the Registrar proved on a balance of probabilities that the capacity was exceeded.

The monetary penalty was confirmed.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor sales licence for allegedly exceeding the capacity of the licensed premises.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and the Registrar withdrew the Notice of Proposal.

The Tribunal closed its file.

The appellant, a restaurant operator, applied to change conditions on its liquor licence to permit amplified music on its outdoor patio.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the changes, which the appellant appealed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove a change in circumstances that would justify altering the conditions, which had been voluntarily accepted upon transfer of the licence.

Furthermore, based on extensive testimony from local residents and a municipal council resolution opposing the application, the Tribunal concluded that allowing the changes would not be in the public interest, as the existing conditions were necessary to maintain a peaceful balance between the commercial establishments and the community.

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its principal, appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a consent order 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 require the appellants to comply with strict disclosure, advertising, and financial responsibility obligations.

The Appellant applied for a liquor licence for a three-deck river boat, the Niagara Belle.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from area residents concerned about noise, traffic, and parking.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that granting the licence would not be in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application without imposing additional conditions.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that the appellant had an alternative vehicle available and failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship as defined by the regulation.

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 being driven by the appellant's common-law partner, whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal first granted an extension of time to appeal due to the appellant's absence following her father's death.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as public transit, and failed to provide evidence that she could not return to work without the vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded that exceptional hardship was not established and confirmed the impoundment.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the liquor licence of the appellant, operating as Diamonds Cabaret, alleging violations of the Liquor Licence Act regulations.

The Registrar alleged the appellant failed to deter disorderly conduct outside the premises after an ejected patron was assaulted by off-duty dancers, and that the appellant permitted drunkenness inside the premises on a separate occasion.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the disorderly conduct allegation, finding the assault outside was unforeseeable and not a predictable consequence of the patron's earlier behaviour inside.

However, the Tribunal upheld the drunkenness allegation, finding that staff knew or ought to have known a patron was intoxicated but allowed him to remain with a beer.

The Tribunal requested written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her common-law spouse was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as she had explicitly forbidden him from driving it and attempted to press charges when she discovered it missing.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence credible, noting she had ended the relationship over the incident.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of the Act and ordered its release.

The appellant, operator of a seasonal bar on Pelee Island, appealed a Notice of Proposal refusing to remove conditions on its liquor licence that restricted patio service and music.

The appellant argued that a shift in its business model to cater to an older boating clientele and minor expansions to local commercial facilities constituted a change in circumstances under section 14 of the Liquor Licence Act.

The Tribunal found that the neighbourhood remained largely residential and that a mere change in business model was insufficient to justify removing conditions originally imposed to protect the public interest.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant 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 citing cognitive impairment after the appellant failed three on-road evaluations.

Medical evidence subsequently confirmed the appellant did not suffer from cognitive impairment or depression.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar erred in issuing a suspension based on cognitive impairment, as there was no evidence supporting that diagnosis.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision, noting that while the Registrar may have had grounds to suspend based on the failed evaluations, the suspension for cognitive impairment was unjustified.