OLAT 2014

The appellant applied for a new liquor sales licence for TD Place, a sports stadium.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving an objection from a local resident concerned about public disturbances.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no causal connection between alcohol served at the premises and past rowdiness, and was satisfied with the appellant's comprehensive security and staff training plans.

The Tribunal concluded the objector failed to prove the licence was contrary to the public interest and directed the Registrar to issue the licence.

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

The appellant was both the owner of the vehicle and the driver whose licence was suspended at the time of the impoundment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that under O. Reg. 631/98, financial loss cannot be considered when the owner and the suspended driver are the same person.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's father was stopped by police and found to be a suspended driver.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence because he had given the vehicle to his father a year prior, instructed him to transfer the ownership, and reasonably believed the transfer had occurred.

The Tribunal found that the appellant exercised due diligence, as his father had actively misled him and there were no indicators prompting the appellant to verify the licence status.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

The Registrar of the Travel Industry Act, 2002 issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of the appellant travel agency.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's de facto manager was an interested person who had been managing the business without the required certification and had misled the Registrar regarding a required working capital injection.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible due to ongoing working capital shortages.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's husband, whose licence was suspended for life, drove it to run errands while the appellant was ill.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as she had alternative means of transportation through friends, neighbours, and public transit, and there was no threat to health or safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Minister of Transportation to downgrade his commercial driver's licence following a reported episode of syncope or loss of consciousness.

The appellant provided medical evidence showing normal test results and explained the episode was a vasovagal event caused by fatigue, lack of food, and stress.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant had corrected his lifestyle habits, had no further episodes, and did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Minister's decision was set aside.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant, a senior with medical issues, argued she and her family relied on the vehicle for medical appointments and daily needs.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had managed with alternative transportation from friends and neighbours, and was paying for her family's transportation costs.

As there was no serious impact or threat to health and safety, exceptional hardship was not established.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The appellant had left his vehicle with a neighbour for repairs, unaware the neighbour was a suspended driver.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen and the appellant did not exercise due diligence.

The exceptional hardship claim failed because the appellant had another vehicle registered in his name, which under O. Reg. 631/98 constitutes an available alternative, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The corporate appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence for 'The Dugout'.

The refusal was based on the criminal records of three of the four shareholders, particularly the twin brothers who had been convicted of illegal bookmaking.

The Tribunal found that the brothers had not fully accepted their criminal past and had attempted to mislead the Tribunal regarding their use of a previously licensed premises for illegal betting.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to transfer the licence only on the condition that the two brothers have no direct or indirect involvement in the corporation or the licensed premises.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after she allowed a colleague, whose licence was suspended for impaired driving, to drive it.

She argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding she failed to exercise due diligence because she did not ask to see the driver's licence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternatives available, including public transit, carpooling, and repairing a second vehicle she owned.

The appellant, a registered motor vehicle salesperson, brought a motion to extend the time to file an appeal of a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration.

The appeal was filed two business days late due to an administrative error by the appellant's counsel.

Applying the four factors from Manuel, the Tribunal found that the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was short and explained, and there was no significant prejudice to the Registrar.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time and set aside the final notice revoking the registration.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after her husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence because she had seen a newly issued driver's licence for her husband, unaware that it was issued under a different name and that his original licence remained suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible and concluded she had exercised due diligence by verifying the physical licence.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to reported alcohol dependence.

The appellant, a recovering alcoholic, had relapsed and was intercepted by police before driving.

An Emergency Room physician submitted a Medical Condition Report indicating alcohol dependence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had not provided sufficient medical evidence, such as a completed Substance Abuse Assessment form or proof of a one-year abstention period as per CCMTA guidelines, to demonstrate she was no longer addicted to an extent likely to interfere with safe driving.

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

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

The appellant had been seizure-free for seven years, but experienced a seizure due to severe sleep deprivation caused by caring for a newborn infant.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the provoking factor had been corrected and the appellant was compliant with his medication.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not suffer from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed a suspended driver to drive her to the airport.

The appellant argued she needed the vehicle to look for work in the hair styling industry.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had lost her job prior to the impoundment and failed to demonstrate a significant and long-lasting loss of income as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The Appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for an outdoor patio at its pub.

Several local residents and a condominium corporation objected, citing concerns about noise, disruptive behaviour, and traffic.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns regarding disruptive behaviour and traffic were speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Relying on expert acoustical evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the patio noise would likely comply with municipal bylaws and not disturb residents.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to conditions, including an 11 p.m. closing time and a prohibition on outdoor music.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained.

The appellant had left the vehicle and keys with her boyfriend's mother, knowing her boyfriend was a suspended driver, and did not consent to him driving it.

The Tribunal found the appellant credible and concluded that the vehicle was taken without her consent, meeting the criteria for a stolen vehicle under section 50.2(3)(a).

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, alleging involvement in misleading advertising at the dealerships where he worked and dishonest conduct surrounding his personal bankruptcy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no control over the advertising at the dealerships and that the Registrar failed to provide evidence supporting the allegations of deceit regarding his bankruptcy.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal, allowing the appellant to maintain his registration.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of its commercial trailer under section 50.3 of the Highway Traffic Act.

During a Level 2 inspection at a weigh station, the trailer's air brake system failed when the driver applied the brakes as directed by the officers, severing the air hose.

The officers deemed this a critical defect and impounded the vehicle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the brake system was operative prior to the inspection and failed suddenly during the inspection process.

Concluding that the regulatory scheme is meant to punish poor operators and remove unsafe vehicles from the highway, not to punish safe operators for sudden emergencies, the Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

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 her husband, whose licence was suspended for a drinking and driving conviction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative transportation available, as she had been using taxicabs to run errands.

Because an alternative existed, the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.