OLAT 2015

The Registrar proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days for obstructing an inspection and breaching a condition prohibiting gaming machines.

The Tribunal previously found the breach of condition proven but not the obstruction.

On the issue of sanction, the Registrar sought a 10 to 12-day suspension.

The Tribunal noted the appellant had relied on former counsel's advice that unplugged machines did not violate the condition, characterizing the breach as mistaken rather than wilful.

The Tribunal ordered a seven-day suspension.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for an additional licensed area (an outdoor patio) at its establishment in the Byward Market.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application due to objections from the Lowertown Community Association.

The objector argued that increased licensed capacity in the area contributed to higher crime rates and requested conditions limiting capacity, hours, and music.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence linking the specific application to increased crime and noted that capacity and noise are addressed by municipal bylaws.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application without the requested conditions.

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

The appellant's previous registration was revoked in 2012 due to multiple instances of dishonesty.

The Tribunal found that while the prescribed time to reapply had passed, the appellant failed to demonstrate that material circumstances had changed.

The evidence showed the appellant made false statements on recent applications to OMVIC and RECO, and failed to repay debts owed to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund.

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

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration issued by the Registrar under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to issue invoices and properly maintain a trust account.

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 correct trust accounting deficiencies, submit monthly trust reconciliations, and maintain minimum working capital.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of Directors of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) denying her claim for $5,600 from the Travel Compensation Fund.

The appellant had paid for airline tickets through a travel agent but never received them due to a fraudulent scheme by the agent's employee.

TICO denied the claim on the basis of insufficient documentation and that payment was made to a third party rather than the registered travel agent.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the lack of documentation was due to the fraud itself and that the third party was actually a named partner of the travel agency.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered TICO to reimburse the appellant $5,600.

The corporate Appellant appealed the Registrar's refusal to issue a Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) Certificate.

The refusal was based on the poor safety record and failed facility audits of the Appellant's sole director and president, who the Registrar deemed a 'related' person under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Appellant argued it was a separate legal entity and should not be penalized for its director's record.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the director controlled or managed the Appellant, making him a related person, and that his history of failed audits justified the Registrar's refusal.

The Appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to opioid dependence.

The suspension followed an unsolicited medical report from a physician diagnosing severe opioid dependence and aberrant use.

The Appellant argued his drug use was for chronic pain and that he was no longer using illicit substances or unprescribed narcotics.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant's history of non-compliance with his treatment plan, including the use of unprescribed Oxycodone and illicit drugs, demonstrated an ongoing addiction likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

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

The appellant travel agency appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to file financial statements.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, which required the appellant to comply with trust account, education, and financial reporting requirements.

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 the appellant allowed a friend, whose licence was suspended for life, to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative transportation available, including a rental vehicle and another vehicle registered in her name.

Furthermore, the financial difficulties cited by the appellant arose prior to the impoundment and were not caused by it.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant rental car company appealed the 180-day impoundment of its vehicle after it was rented to a suspended driver.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by checking the driver's licence and requiring additional identification.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise reasonable prudence.

The appellant's staff only cursorily examined the licence, missing an obvious error in the licence number, and the company deliberately chose not to use the Ministry of Transportation's licence verification services to avoid increasing rental wait times.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a suspended driver.

She argued the vehicle was stolen, the driver was not suspended, she exercised due diligence, and the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the vehicle was lent by her son without restrictions, the driver was subject to a lifetime driving ban, no due diligence was exercised to check the driver's licence status, and the appellant had access to a second vehicle, negating exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The appellant, a welfare recipient with two part-time jobs and a son with an anxiety disorder, demonstrated that she had no reasonable transportation alternatives to reach her employment.

The Tribunal found that hitchhiking, the only remaining option, posed a clear threat to her health and safety, and her absence from home increased the health and safety risk to her son.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his farm vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded when an employee, whose licence was suspended, drove it off the farm.

The Tribunal found the appellant exercised due diligence by checking the employee's licence upon hiring and having no reason to doubt its validity, especially since the employee was not authorized to drive the vehicle off the farm.

The exceptional hardship argument failed due to the availability of an alternative vehicle.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

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 her spouse, a suspended driver, was caught driving it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as rides from family and colleagues, and that there were no identifiable health or safety concerns.

As the strict legislative test for exceptional hardship was not met, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant argued the vehicle was taken without her consent through intimidation and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence credible and concluded the suspended driver obtained the keys by intimidation, meaning the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen by her ex-boyfriend and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to establish the vehicle was stolen, as she left her keys unattended knowing his licence was suspended and had previously allowed him to use the keys.

The exceptional hardship ground was precluded because the appellant had a previous vehicle impounded for the same reason.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver who was an employee of a subcontracted moving company.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment because the employee took the vehicle without permission.

The Tribunal found that the moving company manager had given the keys to another employee with strict instructions to wait for a licensed driver, but the employees took the vehicle without authorization.

Applying the legal definition of theft, the Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment and ordered the Registrar to release it.

The appellant child care centre brought a motion to stay a Protection Order issued by the Director under the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014, which suspended its operations due to alleged inappropriate infant feeding practices.

The Tribunal first determined it had the ancillary authority under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and its home statute to grant an interim stay, despite the Act's silence on staying suspensions.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the appellant's business, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay because the appellant had already eliminated the imminent threat by suspending the involved staff and closing the infant room.

The motion for a stay was granted.

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

A physician had submitted a Medical Condition Report indicating an unstable mental or emotional illness and a history of substance use.

The Appellant argued he was off medications and feeling well, but failed to provide the required Substance Use and Mental Health Assessment forms.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding sufficient evidence that the Appellant suffers from a mental condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely, and noting the absence of medical evidence to refute the initial report.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his application for registration as a gaming assistant (runner) at a bingo hall.

The Registrar cited the appellant's past employment history at OLG Woodbine Slots, which included disciplinary action for mishandling tip boxes and alleged FINTRAC violations, as well as a 2012 conditional discharge for breaching a restraining order.

The Tribunal found the Registrar's evidence regarding the FINTRAC violations relied on unproven hearsay and that the other incidents were insufficient to deny registration.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to register the appellant as a category 2 gaming assistant, subject to conditions requiring him to report any new criminal charges or written disciplinary actions for two years.