OLAT 2014

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying several claims regarding alleged defects in their new home, including countertop swelling, railing discolouration, dryer vibration, missing shingles, and brick quality.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants failed to present sufficient evidence to support their claims that there were warrantable defects.

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

The appellants 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 granted the request and issued a consent order incorporating the agreed terms, which included requirements for the appellants to comply with the Act, enroll in a certification course, and adhere to strict disclosure and advertising obligations.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Motor Vehicle Inspection Standards to refuse to issue a motor vehicle inspection station licence and to refuse to register him as a motor vehicle inspection mechanic.

The Director based the refusal on the appellant's past conduct, which included multiple convictions for falsifying safety standards certificates, operating without a licence, and driving while suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct provided reasonable grounds for belief that he would not operate in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director was ordered to carry out the proposal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal previously found that the appellant breached the Liquor Licence Act and its licence conditions by failing to install security cameras, allowing an excluded person on the premises, and failing to facilitate an inspection.

The Registrar sought revocation of the liquor licence.

The Tribunal found that while the breaches were serious and impeded the regulator's ability to ensure compliance, revocation was unwarranted given the lack of previous violations.

The Tribunal ordered a 21-day suspension of the appellant's liquor licence.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension, arguing he was unable to provide a second breathalyzer sample due to acid reflux and stomach cramps from drinking toilet water in his cell.

The Tribunal found the appellant's medical condition was mild and did not justify his refusal to comply with the breath demand.

The Tribunal noted the appellant initially refused the second test on the basis that he had already provided two samples, not for medical reasons.

The suspension was confirmed.

The appellant corporation appealed the impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an employee whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by inspecting the employee's licence prior to hiring him, and alternatively claimed exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant made genuine and credible efforts to inspect the driver's licence and had no reason to suspect it was invalid, thereby satisfying the due diligence requirement.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of the appellant travel agency for failing to file financial statements.

The agency appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

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

The Tribunal issued the consent order, which required the agency to maintain its trust account properly, submit monthly trust reconciliations, provide financial statements, and maintain minimum working capital.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles ordered the revocation of the appellant's Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) on the basis that it was related to a previously cancelled carrier, Joyce Express.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant and the cancelled carrier were related under the Highway Traffic Act because they shared a common officer who acted as the controlling mind for both operations.

However, noting the appellant's recent 19-month period without safety incidents and its shift to a local freight-forwarding business model, the Tribunal set aside the revocation order.

The Tribunal imposed strict conditions, limiting the appellant's fleet to one truck and requiring it to maintain a violation rate of 35% or below for 24 months.

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

The appellant, who has insulin-dependent diabetes, experienced multiple severe hypoglycaemic episodes over several years, leading to four licence suspensions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision, requiring a six-month period of glucose stability before the licence could be reinstated.

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

The appellant, whose Ontario licence was suspended, claimed he believed he could drive because he held a New Brunswick licence.

He also argued the impoundment caused hardship because his newborn child needed to attend medical appointments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant did not exercise due diligence to ascertain his licence status in Ontario.

The Tribunal also found that exceptional hardship was not established, as alternative transportation was available and the child's health was not in immediate danger.

The appellant corporation appealed the 90-day impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after an employee was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for life due to a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the exceptional hardship ground was precluded because the vehicle had been previously impounded for the same driver's actions.

The due diligence ground also failed because the appellant admitted to not verifying the employee's licence status despite the prior impoundment.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged the appellant's 2011 US conviction for attempting to firebomb a DMV building demonstrated a lack of integrity, and that his application contained false statements minimizing his conduct.

The Tribunal found the appellant had made full disclosure of his conviction and plea deal, and did not deliberately mislead the Registrar.

Given the specific nature of the past offence and the appellant's history of honest dealings with consumers, the Tribunal concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Registrar was ordered not to carry out the proposal.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days, alleging the establishment failed to inspect the identification of an underage patron and permitted her to consume alcohol.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the establishment did not check the patron's identification, as she may have had false identification she chose not to show police.

Furthermore, while the patron likely consumed beer on the premises, there was no evidence that the establishment or its staff permitted her to have or consume it.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposed suspension.

The Appellant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspending its Commercial Vehicle Operators' Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its plates for 10 days due to a high safety violation rate.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to take responsibility for its safety record, blaming its drivers instead, and failed to implement promised remedial measures such as a new employee manual and retaining a consultant.

The Tribunal upheld the 10-day suspension as appropriate.

The 91-year-old appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a Medical Condition Report from his physician indicating dementia or Alzheimer's.

The appellant argued the suspension was based on age discrimination in violation of section 15 of the Charter.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no evidence of age discrimination, noting the physician's report was based on clinical impressions and a cognitive assessment.

A subsequent independent functional driving assessment predicted a 90% chance of failure and the road test was aborted for safety reasons.

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

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming imposed a $1,500 monetary penalty on the appellant licensee for allegedly permitting drunkenness on the premises, contrary to s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90.

An inspector observed a patron who appeared intoxicated, citing slurred speech, unsteadiness, and inappropriate behaviour.

The licensee appealed the order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to prove the patron was intoxicated, noting her behaviour could be attributed to her naturally boisterous personality and that the inspector did not speak to the patron or the bartender.

The appeal was allowed and the monetary penalty was set aside.

The Appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty imposing $3,000 for three alleged contraventions of the Liquor Licence Act for permitting drunkenness and disorderly conduct.

As a preliminary matter, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to disclose police notes and internal communications, applying Stinchcombe principles to administrative proceedings involving livelihood.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to prove the Appellant permitted an intoxicated patron to cause damage, permitted a removed patron to re-enter, or forced inspectors to leave for their safety.

The Tribunal set aside the alleged contraventions and the monetary penalties.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his application for a liquor licence.

The Appellant failed to attend the hearing.

Evidence showed the Appellant repeatedly sold liquor without a licence despite warnings, drove while suspended, provided false information on his application, and had a history of financial irresponsibility including bankruptcy and unpaid fines.

The Tribunal found the Appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible and would not carry on business in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposal to refuse the licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of a commercial trailer under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar brought a preliminary motion arguing the appellant lacked standing because it was not the 'owner' of the trailer.

The Tribunal found that under section 82.1 of the Act, the owner is the person named on the vehicle portion of the certificate of registration.

Since the appellant's name only appeared on the plate portion, it did not meet the statutory definition of owner.

The motion was granted, the appellant was found to lack standing, and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The appellant filed the appeal 37 days after the impoundment, well past the 15-day statutory limit.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, significant prejudice to the respondent due to accruing costs, and a lack of merit in the proposed appeal.