OLAT 2014

The appellant, Lily Vacation Inc., appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 to revoke its registration as a travel agent for failing to file financial statements and respond to correspondence.

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 appellant to maintain its trust account, submit monthly reconciliations, file annual financial statements, and maintain minimum working capital.

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

The refusal was based on the appellant's failure to fully disclose a prior criminal charge and subsequent conviction for harassment, as well as allegedly lying to a representative of the Registrar.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had provided sufficient disclosure, albeit in stages, and had been cooperative.

Relying on compelling character evidence from the appellant's employer, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's past conduct did not afford reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty, integrity, and in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the registration subject to conditions.

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not meet the criteria for exceptional hardship because it was able to rent a replacement vehicle to continue its business operations.

The Tribunal also noted that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not conducting regular licence checks on its employees.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a motor vehicle accident.

The investigating police officer reported that the appellant admitted to having a low glucose count and blacking out before the accident.

The appellant, who has diabetes, denied blacking out and claimed a blown tire caused the accident, but admitted his blood glucose was low immediately after.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffered from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely, applying the CCMTA guidelines for severe hypoglycemia.

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

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's husband, whose licence was suspended, drove it.

The appellant argued that the vehicle was taken without her knowledge or consent while they were camping, and that she had explicitly told her husband not to drive it.

The Tribunal found the appellant credible and concluded that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act at the time of the impoundment.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for its indoor premises.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving community objections.

The objectors raised concerns about increased density of licensed establishments, noise, parking, and disturbances.

The Tribunal found the objectors' concerns to be speculative and noted that parking and density are municipal zoning matters.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to conditions agreed upon by the appellant and the City of Toronto.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons following a motor vehicle collision caused by a severe hypoglycemic episode.

The appellant, who has Type 1 diabetes, argued that the episode was triggered by extreme emotional stress and physical exertion, and that he had been compliant with his medical management.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, applying the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) guidelines which require a six-month episode-free waiting period for drivers who experience severe hypoglycemia.

The appellant, a motor vehicle dealer, brought a motion to stay the Tribunal's order revoking his registration pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The revocation was based on a criminal conviction for sexual assault and false answers on renewal applications.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the Tribunal's reliance on the criminal court's credibility findings while the conviction was under appeal.

The Tribunal also found the appellant would suffer irreparable harm through the loss of his business and home, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay as the risk to the public was speculative.

The motion was granted and a stay was issued for six months.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to revoke the appellant's liquor licence on the basis that its sole officer and director was a member and former president of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club.

Following a re-hearing ordered by the Court of Appeal, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the licensee's extensive involvement and leadership role in a criminal organization provided reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, despite a 13-year unblemished record in operating the licensed premises.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registrations of SM Auto Rental Ltd. as a motor vehicle dealer and Baldev-Raj Mehta as a salesperson.

The proposal was based on allegations that Mehta assisted a friend in making false statements and non-disclosures on the friend's applications for registration in 2005 and 2012.

The Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence of a deliberate intention to deceive on the part of the appellants, noting a language barrier and plausible explanations for the answers provided.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically alcohol dependence and a possible alcohol-related seizure.

The Ministry received a Medical Condition Report indicating these conditions and required the appellant to complete a Substance Abuse Assessment Form, which she failed to do.

The Tribunal found that the appellant likely suffers from alcohol dependence based on medical reports and her own testimony.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence, noting the appellant must document a period of abstinence and provide further medical evidence before re-licensing.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a beauty salon and spa.

The City of Toronto filed a blanket objection to all liquor licence applications unless the applicant met certain conditions, but called no evidence specific to the appellant's application.

The Tribunal found that a municipal resolution alone, without specific evidence, is not persuasive enough to prove that issuing the licence is contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application.

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

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the appeal 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 Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical report indicating alcohol dependence and withdrawal.

The appellant had visited the hospital after a binge drinking episode, prompting a physician to submit a Notice of Medical Condition.

The Ministry of Transportation required proof of abstinence or completion of a substance abuse assessment form, which the appellant failed to provide.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the appellant met the criteria for chronic alcohol dependence and had not provided the necessary information to demonstrate he was safe to drive.

The appellant motor vehicle dealer appealed a Notice of Order by the Registrar to cease false advertising.

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 the settlement terms which required the dealer's advertising to be pre-approved for a specified period and mandated compliance with advertising regulations.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had access to alternative transportation, including public transit, rental vehicles, and other vehicles owned by her and her husband.

The appellant appealed the 15-day impoundment of its commercial trailer under the Highway Traffic Act.

Ministry of Transportation enforcement officers inspected the trailer and found that more than 50% of the brakes exceeded the allowable pushrod travel limit, constituting a critical defect.

The appellant argued it had a stellar safety record and had recently upgraded the brakes, but provided no evidence to contradict the officers' findings.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, noting its jurisdiction is limited to determining whether a critical defect existed at the time of inspection.

The appellant appealed an order requiring it to file an accessibility report and pay a $2,000 administrative penalty under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

The appellant argued it was unaware of the requirement, operated an internet-based business, and had fewer than 20 employees.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant was required to file a report in 2012, the failure to do so was a minor administrative contravention, not a major one posing health or safety risks.

Furthermore, as this was the first reporting cycle, there was no contravention history.

The Tribunal varied the order, reducing the administrative penalty to $250.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had access to alternative transportation, such as public transit and rental vehicles, and failed to demonstrate that any losses incurred would be significant and long-lasting.

The appeal was dismissed and the 45-day impoundment was confirmed.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the appellant be registered as a Business Manager subject to terms and conditions, including that she not be a partner, shareholder, officer, director, or controlling mind of a dealer.