OLAT 2015

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

The appellant had allowed a friend to drive her vehicle, assuming he had a valid licence because she had seen him drive previously and knew he operated heavy equipment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that assuming a driver has a valid licence without taking steps to verify it does not constitute due diligence.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The Appellant purchased a condominium unit and the vendor delayed closing due to a province-wide elevator strike, invoking the Unavoidable Delay provisions.

The Appellant argued the vendor failed to properly notify him of the end of the delay period, entitling him to $7,500 in delayed occupancy compensation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the vendor took all reasonable steps to inform the Appellant and properly set a new firm occupancy date based on the best available scheduling information.

The Tribunal upheld Tarion's decision to deny the warranty claim.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to downgrade his commercial Class 'AZ' licence to a Class 'G' licence following a single seizure.

The seizure occurred after surgery for an arteriovenous malformation.

The Ministry argued that the epilepsy standard requiring five years seizure-free should apply.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had experienced a single provoked seizure, was not diagnosed with epilepsy, and met the CCMTA standard for commercial driving under Guideline 17.6.1.

The Tribunal set aside the decision to change the class of licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his commercial vehicle after it was driven by an employee whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by seeing the licence in the driver's wallet and claimed exceptional hardship due to the impact on his snow removal business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not actually examining the licence.

The exceptional hardship claim also failed because the appellant had access to an alternative personal vehicle and had hired someone else with a truck to assist his business.

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 the appellant's partner, whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no alternative means of transportation available, as she had a second vehicle and could walk to work.

The Tribunal also found no threat to health or safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant travel agency appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse to renew its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a Consent Order 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 properly, file annual financial statements, respond to inquiries promptly, and maintain minimum working capital.

The Appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed after he failed to provide an adequate breath sample into an Approved Screening Device.

The Appellant argued he was unable to provide the sample due to a sore throat, and provided a doctor's note stating he was being treated for a possible strep throat infection.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to establish on a balance of probabilities that the Appellant was medically unable to comply with the demand.

The suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a medical condition report from his family physician indicating cognitive decline and a diagnosis of dementia or Alzheimer's.

The Ministry of Transportation required a full cognitive assessment, which the appellant failed to provide.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding no compelling evidence to counter the physician's concerns regarding the appellant's ability to drive safely.

The Appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days because he was driving while suspended due to a Canada-wide prohibition order from Nova Scotia.

He filed an appeal 23 days after the 15-day statutory deadline expired.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed his motion for an extension of time, finding he lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant, and the appeal lacked merit because he was the suspended driver and could not claim exceptional hardship under the regulation.

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 past conduct, which included criminal convictions for break and enter with intent to commit assault with a weapon and mischief, for which he was still on probation, as well as a prior conviction for acting as an unregistered salesperson.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had not demonstrated a sufficient period of positive, unsupervised conduct.

Considering the seriousness of the criminal offences, his tendency to minimize his involvement, and his previous violation of the Act, the Tribunal concluded that his past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

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

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant lent it to the father of her child, who was a suspended driver.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had leased a replacement vehicle and therefore failed to demonstrate that no alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

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

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order without a hearing pursuant to 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 for a period of three years, including requirements to comply with the Act, notify the Registrar of changes, and not act as a controlling mind of a dealer without consent.

The appellants, motor vehicle dealers facing registration revocation, brought a motion for disclosure of completed and ongoing investigations by the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the Registrar to disclose all relevant information from completed investigations, regardless of format.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for disclosure of ongoing investigations, finding that such information is protected by public interest privilege and the appellants failed to establish that the information sought went to the root of their defence.

The Director of the MVDA was denied party status but granted intervener status on the motion.

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

The vehicle was impounded after police arrested the appellant's daughter, a suspended driver, who was a passenger in the parked vehicle.

The appellant argued that her daughter's friend, who was not suspended, was the actual driver.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's credible hearsay evidence over the documentary evidence, finding that the friend was driving the vehicle when police observed it.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

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

The vehicle was detained when the father of the appellant's children, a suspended driver, took the vehicle without her permission.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant credible and concluded the vehicle was taken without her consent, satisfying the definition of 'stolen' under the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

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 allowed her ex-boyfriend, an unlicensed and suspended driver, to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative transportation available, albeit inconvenient, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The refusal was based on the appellant's 2009 U.S. conviction for conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, for which he was currently on parole in Canada.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had a lengthy, unblemished history as a registrant prior to the conviction, the offence was not industry-related, and he had strong support from a prospective employer and the community.

The Tribunal concluded that the past conduct did not provide reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar to approve the registration subject to conditions.

The appellant travel agent appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to file financial statements, maintain minimum working capital, and maintain proper trust accounting.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, which required the appellant to submit trust reconciliations, provide proof of working capital compliance, and fulfill other regulatory obligations.

The Appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition (seizures).

The suspension was based on a neurologist's report indicating simple partial seizures.

The Appellant failed to provide required medical information to satisfy the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) medical standards.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant suffers from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant commercial carrier appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspending its Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) for seven days due to a poor safety record.

The appellant had a history of failed facility audits, logbook violations, and a violation rate exceeding 100%.

Despite a show cause meeting and a proposed compliance plan, the appellant's violation rate continued to deteriorate.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no confidence in the appellant's ability to improve without stricter sanctions.

The Tribunal modified the Registrar's order, increasing the suspension from seven to ten days and imposing a condition that the appellant's violation rate not exceed 35% for 24 months.