OLAT 2014

The Appellant brought a motion for the reinstatement of his real estate salesperson registration pending his appeal of a licence revocation, and for full disclosure of documents by the Registrar.

The Tribunal dismissed the reinstatement request, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the issue had already been decided by another Vice-Chair.

However, applying the principles of procedural fairness from Stinchcombe, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to provide full disclosure of all communications with complainants and clients, as well as the complete investigation file.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's stepson was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a drinking and driving conviction.

The appellant withdrew his appeal ground of due diligence, admitting he took no precautionary measures to secure the vehicle's keys.

On the ground of exceptional hardship, the Tribunal found that the appellant and his family had alternative means of transportation available, as they had managed with the help of his wife's vehicle and a co-worker.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claims for various alleged construction defects in their new home, including a fireplace fan, wall reinforcement, bathroom wiring, shower stall design, and a garage door.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the majority of the claims, finding no breach of the Ontario Building Code or defect in workmanship or materials.

However, the Tribunal ordered Tarion to effect repairs to the garage door to bring it into compliance with the warranty.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the Appellant funeral home's registration under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 due to financial difficulties, unpaid suppliers, and failure to maintain and produce required books and records.

The Appellant, under new ownership, struggled with regulatory compliance and was placed on cash-on-delivery terms by suppliers, affecting its ability to fulfill pre-paid funeral contracts.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the Appellant was in breach of its regulatory obligations, revocation was too extreme a penalty given the lack of intentional mishandling of trust funds and the new owner's inexperience.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar not to carry out the proposal and instead imposed strict conditions on the Appellant's licence, including the requirement to maintain a licensed managing funeral director and provide a repayment plan for outstanding debts.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant permitted her boyfriend, whose licence was suspended for life due to multiple impaired driving convictions, to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative transportation options and did not suffer economic hardship or loss of employment.

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

The Appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed after he refused to provide a breath sample.

The Appellant argued he was unable to comply with the breath demand due to his diabetes and requested a blood test instead.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the police had reasonable grounds to make the demand and that the Appellant failed to establish a valid medical reason for his refusal.

The medical documentation provided was incomplete and did not support his claim.

The Tribunal confirmed the suspension.

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant's husband, who was the intended general manager, had previously rented the premises for events under Special Occasion Permits that resulted in neighbourhood disturbances, violence, and breaches of permit conditions.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant made false statements on the application to conceal her husband's involvement due to his outstanding criminal charges.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was disentitled to a licence under the Liquor Licence Act because there were reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on with integrity and honesty, false statements were made, and issuing the licence would not be in the public interest.

The Registrar was directed to refuse the application.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to his daily use of marijuana, which he smoked while suffering from polycystic kidney disease.

The appellant appealed the suspension to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the Medical Advisory Committee provided no evidence equating the appellant's marijuana use with an addiction that would significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision and ordered the appellant's driving privileges fully reinstated.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of a travel agency due to ongoing trust accounting deficiencies, including commingling of funds and paying overhead expenses from the trust account.

The Appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while the Appellant failed to comply with trust accounting requirements, there was no evidence of financial irresponsibility or dishonesty towards consumers or suppliers.

The Tribunal modified the Registrar's proposal, ordering a 10-day suspension and imposing strict conditions for future compliance.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons.

The suspension was initially based on a reported loss of consciousness after the appellant fell in a grocery store.

The appellant maintained he merely stumbled and did not lose consciousness, which was supported by his family physician.

The Registrar later requested a Functional Driving Assessment due to the appellant's musculoskeletal condition.

The Tribunal found the appellant's physician's letter strongly supportive of his ability to drive safely and concluded the appellant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his driving.

The appeal was allowed and the suspension was set aside.

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship and that it was misled by its employee regarding his suspended driver's licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not checking the employee's licence status.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because it owned other vehicles that could serve as alternatives, and there was insufficient evidence of immediate, significant, and long-lasting economic loss.

The appellants, operators of a licensed establishment, appealed a $2,000 monetary penalty imposed by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for permitting disorderly conduct on the premises.

The incident involved the forceful removal of a patron who had made remarks about an allegedly underage bartender.

The Tribunal found that while the licensees had the right to ask the patron to leave, they escalated the situation by using excessive force, dragging the patron out, and failing to call the police.

The Tribunal concluded that the licensees exercised poor judgment and thereby permitted quarrelsome, violent, or disorderly conduct to occur, confirming the monetary penalty.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's boyfriend, a suspended driver, was found in care and control of it.

The appellant, a personal support worker with a limited income, argued that the loss of the vehicle would cause immediate and significant financial hardship and impact her elderly client.

The Tribunal found that the appellant proved exceptional hardship on a balance of probabilities and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellants brought Charter applications during an appeal from a proposal to revoke their motor vehicle inspection station licence and mechanic's registration.

The Tribunal held that Section 11 of the Charter does not apply because the proceedings are regulatory, not criminal.

The Tribunal also held that Section 7 of the Charter does not apply to the corporate appellant.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on whether Section 7 applies to the individual appellant's claim of unlawful detention until evidence is heard.

The appellants brought a motion to vary a Consent Order that had drastically reduced the managerial involvement of their principals following an Immediate Suspension Order of their licences.

The appellants sought to allow the principals to perform clerical work, participate in management decision-making, and assist in funeral services.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, allowing limited clerical work and management decision-making in the presence of a Monitor, but dismissed the request to allow the principals to engage in services requiring a licence, such as assisting in funeral services and handling deceased persons.

The appellants also consented to pay $25,000 in outstanding costs to the Board.

The appellant 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 indicating cognitive impairment and possible dementia.

The appellant refused to undergo a functional driving assessment as required by the Registrar.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the onus was on the appellant to provide the requested assessment to prove he could drive safely, and there was no medical evidence supporting re-licensure.

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

The vehicle had been driven by the principal's brother, whose licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle and that financial cost to release the vehicle could not be considered as exceptional hardship under the regulations.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant, operating a licensed establishment, applied to remove two conditions from its liquor licence prohibiting amplified sound causing audible noise to residential buildings after 11 p.m. and prohibiting cover charges.

The appellant argued that a change in its business model from a board game cafe to an evening bar constituted a change in circumstances justifying the removal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the conditions were originally negotiated for public interest reasons to mitigate noise and social consequences in the community.

The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances supporting the removal of the conditions and that their removal was not in the public interest.

The Registrar's proposal to refuse the application was upheld.

The appellants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their warranty claim for alleged major structural defects in their new home, including foundation cracks, split studs, squeaky floors, and inadequate footings.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that any of the alleged issues constituted a major structural defect.

The evidence showed the home was built in accordance with the Ontario Building Code and the observed cracks were normal concrete curing.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was ordered to deny the warranty claims.

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

The vehicle was impounded after an employee was caught driving it while suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had found alternative means of transportation (rentals and personal vehicles) and failed to establish that the loss of the vehicle met the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.