OLAT 2015

The appellant appealed a decision by the Minister of Transportation to downgrade his Class 'AC' commercial driver's licence to a Class 'G' licence following the insertion of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

The Ministry's Medical Advisory Committee recommended the downgrade.

However, the appellant's treating cardiologist provided evidence that the appellant's condition was stable, his left ventricular function had improved, and his annual risk of sudden incapacitation was less than 1%.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant met the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators medical standards for commercial drivers with an ICD.

The Tribunal set aside the Minister's decision, finding the appellant did not have a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a breakthrough seizure.

The seizure occurred after nearly four years of being seizure-free and was attributed to sleep deprivation.

The Ministry of Transportation maintained the suspension, relying on the CCMTA guideline requiring a six-month seizure-free period.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant, who had increased his medication and was highly compliant and insightful regarding his condition, did not suffer from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence because she did not know her son's licence was suspended, and claimed exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to make any inquiries about her son's licence status despite his history of suspensions, thus failing the due diligence test.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the appellant had alternative transportation available through her daughter and a friend.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty claims for a cracked granite countertop and a defective main staircase in their new home.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the cracked countertop was a warranted defect, noting the builder's prior offer to replace it as evidence of a pre-existing defect, despite its omission from the pre-delivery inspection report.

The tribunal dismissed the claim regarding the staircase due to insufficient evidence of a defect.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the builder was ordered to replace the countertop.

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 appellant, who was the suspended driver at the time of the impoundment, claimed financial difficulties and reliance on the vehicle for work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that alternative transportation was available and that under O. Reg. 631/98, financial loss cannot be considered if the impact of the loss is on the suspended driver himself.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time for filing an appeal from a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Renew a Licence under the Child and Family Services Act.

The appellant argued it was misled by the appeal procedures and missed the deadline despite intending to appeal.

Applying the four-part test from Manuel v. Registrar, the Tribunal found the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was short, and the prejudice to the appellant outweighed the prejudice to the Director.

However, the Tribunal concluded the appeal lacked merit because the appellant's facility had been vacant for over two years, triggering the statutory requirement under s. 203(1) to surrender the licence.

The motion to extend time was dismissed.

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

The vehicle was driven by a suspended driver to whom the appellant's husband had given the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the husband failed to exercise due diligence because he merely asked if the driver had a valid licence without asking to see it.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the husband had access to alternative transportation, including a rental car and a second vehicle registered to the household.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The Appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $2,000 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for allegedly permitting a drunk person on its premises.

The Tribunal found that while the patron was sleeping at the bar, the evidence did not establish on a balance of probabilities that he was drunk.

The symptoms observed by the inspectors were consistent with someone waking from sleep, and the patron's alcohol consumption was within Smart Serve limits.

The Tribunal set aside the monetary penalty.

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, which imposed terms and conditions on the Appellants, including strict requirements for record-keeping, vehicle registration, and compliance with the Registrar's Standards of Business Practice.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse and revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and applied for a consent order without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, imposing conditions on the appellants' registrations, including prohibiting the involvement of a specific individual in the dealership and requiring compliance with the Registrar's Standards of Business Practice.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim that a basement wall crack leading to a water leak constituted a major structural defect.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the water penetration was limited to a small foyer area, was easily cleaned up, and did not result in lasting damage or prevent the use of a significant portion of the home.

The Tribunal concluded the issue did not meet the definition of a major structural defect and directed Tarion to deny the warranty claim.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of Affinity Travel and Consulting Services Inc. under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, citing failure to file financial statements and correct a working capital deficiency.

The travel agent appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

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

The Tribunal issued the consent order, requiring the travel agent to maintain its trust account, file annual financial statements, and maintain minimum working capital.

The appellant, a convenience store operator registered as a gaming supplier, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke his registration.

Following an undercover police operation, the appellant was found to have purchased allegedly stolen goods from undercover officers and possessed over 600 cartons of untaxed cigarettes.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, including purchasing goods he believed to be stolen and possessing untaxed cigarettes on an industrial scale, demonstrated a lack of integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's proposal and ordered the revocation of the appellant's registration.

The appellants sought a stay of an Order to Pay an Administrative Penalty of $10,000 issued by the Registrar of the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority for allegedly operating an unlicensed retirement home.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal found there was a serious issue to be tried but concluded the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as the penalty funds would be held and reimbursed if the appeal succeeded.

The Tribunal also found the balance of convenience and public interest weighed against granting a stay, given the regulatory scheme's focus on protecting vulnerable residents.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

Following the conclusion of a hearing, the Appellants brought a motion seeking leave to file post-hearing written submissions.

The Appellants argued that their counsel had rushed through oral submissions due to the late hour and omitted responses to certain evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, noting that both parties were explicitly offered the choice between oral and written submissions, chose oral submissions, and were assured they would not be rushed.

The Tribunal found that the request to file additional reasons was an afterthought.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by her boyfriend, a suspended driver, and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the vehicle was not stolen, as the appellant had implicitly granted use of the vehicle in the past.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship, as she had access to alternative transportation and did not prove significant and long-lasting financial loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The Appellant brought a motion to extend the time for filing his appeal of a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse registration under the Gaming Control Act.

The Appellant failed to appeal within the 15-day period, and the Registrar issued a Final Order.

The Appellant filed an appeal approximately 10 weeks late.

The Appellant failed to appear at the motion hearing and provided no evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for an extension of time and closed the file.