OLAT 2014

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

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's failure to disclose past employment and pending criminal charges (which resulted in a conviction for theft over $5000) on his registration and renewal applications.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant made mistakes on his applications, he had taken responsibility for his past criminal conduct by making full restitution, completing a counselling program for a gambling addiction, and successfully completing his probation.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to revoke, subject to conditions on the appellant's registration.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing they exercised due diligence in determining the driver's licence was not suspended.

The appellant failed to appear at the teleconference hearing.

Without evidence from the appellant to support the due diligence claim, the Tribunal found the statutory criteria were not met and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his 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's son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant, who had recently filed for bankruptcy and relied on the vehicle to transport tools for his roofing job, demonstrated that no alternative transportation was available and that the loss of the vehicle would cause immediate and significant financial hardship.

The Tribunal found that the criteria for exceptional hardship were met and ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim regarding seasonal flooding and frost in their new home's cold cellar.

The appellants alleged the issues were caused by water penetration or improperly cured concrete.

Tarion and the builder argued the condition was caused by condensation resulting from the appellants' failure to maintain adequate ventilation, noting the appellants had plugged the cold cellar's air vent.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no evidence of water penetration or concrete defects, concluding the moisture was due to condensation.

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

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to suspend its liquor licence.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the parties reached a settlement.

The appellant admitted all allegations in the Notice of Proposal and consented to a 21-day suspension of its liquor licence.

The appellant, a licensed establishment, brought a motion to dismiss the Registrar's Notice of Proposal to revoke its liquor licence.

The appellant argued that the Registrar's delay in issuing the notice constituted an abuse of process, and that insufficient disclosure and the death of a key investigating inspector impaired its ability to make full answer and defence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no inordinate delay or significant prejudice to justify a stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal also held that the disclosure provided was adequate and that the unavailability of the inspector did not prejudice the appellant, as the related overcrowding allegation was withdrawn and direct complainants would testify regarding the noise complaints.

The appellant applied for a liquor sales licence, which the Registrar proposed to review due to public objections.

At the hearing, the City of Toronto withdrew its objection, and the remaining objector failed to attend.

The Registrar took no position.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to standard municipal clearance letters and requirements.

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 under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, incorporating terms that included the revocation of the corporate dealer's registration, conditions on the individual appellant's registration as a salesperson, and requirements regarding financial responsibility and criminal record disclosure.

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

The Appellant argued she was unable to comply with the breath demand due to a panic attack, which constituted a medical reason under section 50.1(2)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal accepted medical evidence from the Appellant's family doctor and a psychiatrist confirming her history of generalized anxiety disorder and panic attacks.

Finding the Appellant credible and that her panic attack prevented her from providing a sample, the Tribunal set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence following a medical condition report indicating a diagnosis of Huntington's disease and cognitive impairment.

The appellant subsequently failed a functional driving assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar was justified in suspending the licence and requiring an on-road assessment.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision, concluding that the appellant suffers from a physical condition likely to significantly affect his ability to drive safely.

The Appellant funeral home appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke and immediately suspend its licence.

The suspension was based on allegations that the Appellant breached a previous interim order by denying a Tribunal-appointed monitor access to books and records, and by secretly selling and closing an affiliated funeral home location without notifying the monitor, the regulator, or senior staff.

The Tribunal found the principal's conduct lacked honesty and integrity, and that the secret closure put the public at risk.

The Tribunal concluded it was in the public interest to maintain the licence suspension pending the full hearing.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing he exercised due diligence in determining the driver's licence was not suspended.

The appellant admitted he allowed the suspended driver to use the vehicle based solely on the driver's word that his licence had been reinstated, without actually examining the licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet the due diligence requirement under s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act, as it is incumbent upon an owner to at least examine the licence.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's boyfriend, a suspended driver, took the vehicle without her knowledge or permission.

The appellant argued that the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because she was pregnant and relied on the vehicle for transportation.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was taken without the appellant's consent and was therefore "stolen" within the meaning of the Act.

The Tribunal also found that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's liquor licence due to alleged breaches of the Liquor Licence Act and licence conditions.

The conditions were imposed after an incident involving an individual, Inderjeet Joshi, who was subsequently excluded from the premises.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant breached conditions by allowing Joshi on the premises, failing to install required security cameras, and failing to facilitate an inspection.

The Tribunal requested submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The Appellants appealed a proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to revoke their motor vehicle inspection station licence and mechanic's registration.

Before the hearing, the Appellants' licence and registration expired.

The Director withdrew the Notice of Proposal and brought a motion to declare the matter at an end.

The Tribunal held that the Director has the authority to withdraw a proposal, subject to the Tribunal's jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process.

Finding no abuse of process and noting that the Tribunal cannot convert the hearing into one on a hypothetical future refusal of a licence, the Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and declared the matter at an end.

The appellants brought a motion to review a previous Tribunal order directing Tarion to repair water penetration in their units, arguing the repairs were not completed.

Tarion and the added party argued the Tribunal was functus officio.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellants were seeking enforcement of the order, which is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal concluded it had exhausted its jurisdiction and was functus officio.

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 to dispose of the proceedings without a hearing pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the Consent Order, incorporating the agreed-upon terms and conditions of registration, which included restrictions on business associations, financial responsibilities, and reporting obligations.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after she allowed a suspended driver to operate it.

She argued she exercised due diligence because the driver promised he had a valid licence, and claimed exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for school and work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that relying solely on the driver's word without examining the licence did not constitute due diligence.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the appellant had access to alternative transportation, including public transit and rides from her parents.

The appellant withdrew his appeal of a Notice of Proposal to revoke his motor vehicle dealer registration.

The respondent Registrar filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal continue with the hearing despite the withdrawal.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that it lost jurisdiction once the appeal was withdrawn.

The matter reverts to the Registrar to carry out the sanctions outlined in the Notice of Proposal.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, imposing terms and conditions on the appellant's registration, including compliance with the Act, restrictions on acting as a controlling mind of a dealer without consent, and disclosure requirements.