OLAT 2015

The Appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,500 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for permitting the removal of alcoholic beverages from a licensed area during a wine festival.

The Tribunal found that, on a balance of probabilities, patrons were observed leaving the licensed area with ice wine in their glasses.

Despite the Appellant's security measures, they were insufficient to prevent the removal of alcohol.

The Tribunal confirmed the monetary penalty and dismissed the appeal.

The Licensee appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to suspend its liquor licence for 14 days.

The Tribunal found that the Licensee contravened the regulations by failing to clear signs of beverage alcohol service by 2:45 a.m. and by permitting liquor not purchased from a government store onto the premises.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegation that the Licensee served alcohol after 2:00 a.m. due to insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal invited written submissions on penalty.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for permitting overcrowding in its licensed establishment.

Two AGCO inspectors conducted independent counts using mechanical counters and found the number of patrons exceeded the licensed capacity of 240.

The Tribunal accepted the inspectors' evidence over the appellant's internal counts, finding on a balance of probabilities that the establishment was over capacity.

The $1,000 monetary penalty was confirmed.

Tarion Warranty Corporation brought a motion to dismiss 22 items from the appellants' second-year new home warranty appeal, arguing they were barred by res judicata and issue estoppel following a previous Tribunal decision on first-year claims.

The Tribunal reviewed each item and found that while 7 items had been conclusively decided in the previous hearing, the remaining items involved new issues or different areas of the home, such as the garage, that were not previously adjudicated.

The motion was granted in part, allowing the appellants to pursue the remaining claims.

The appellant purchased a property six years after its first occupation and discovered significant water penetration and structural issues in the basement.

Before notifying Tarion, the appellant undertook extensive excavations and repairs costing over $250,000.

The Tribunal found that while two issues (an inadequately supported LVL beam and a knee wall) constituted major structural defects under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, the appellant's claim must fail.

By undertaking extensive self-help repairs before contacting Tarion, the appellant denied Tarion its statutory right to inspect the defects and determine the necessary scope of repairs.

The homeowners brought a motion seeking clarification and enforcement of a previous Tribunal decision, citing significant delays and concerns about the quality of subcontractors hired by Tarion Warranty Corporation to perform remediation work.

The Tribunal shared the homeowners' concerns but dismissed the motion for enforcement, noting that administrative tribunals lack the authority to enforce their own orders, which must be done through the Superior Court of Justice under section 19 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal did, however, correct a typographical error in its previous order pursuant to its Rules of Practice.

The Appellants appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspending their Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificates for 15 days due to a high safety violation rate identified in an audit.

The Tribunal found that while the Appellants had a poor safety record in the past, they had since taken significant steps to improve compliance, resulting in a dramatically lower violation rate in a subsequent audit.

The Tribunal concluded that upholding the suspension would be punitive rather than remedial, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the suspension order.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to file an appeal of a Proposal to refuse to issue a motor vehicle inspection station licence and to refuse to register him as a mechanic.

The appeal was filed almost 16 months after the deadline.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, an excessive and largely unexplained delay, and insufficient evidence of merit to justify the extension.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to refuse the issuance of a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS) licence.

The Director's refusal was based on the appellant's past conduct, including the revocation of a previous MVIS licence, convictions for issuing improper Safety Standard Certificates, and a poor safety record as a Commercial Vehicle Operator.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, particularly the misuse of Safety Standard Certificates and failure to maintain vehicles in good condition, afforded reasonable grounds to believe the MVIS would not be operated in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal ordered the Director to carry out the proposal to refuse the licence.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed a 14-day suspension of the appellant's liquor licence following an incident where a security staff member assaulted a patron.

The Tribunal previously found the appellant in breach of s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90.

On the issue of sanction, the Registrar sought a 10 to 12-day suspension, while the appellant argued for no suspension, noting the patron initiated the altercation and the appellant had no prior disciplinary history.

The Tribunal found a 10 to 12-day suspension unduly harsh but determined a suspension was necessary for specific deterrence, as the appellant provided no evidence of corrective action taken with its security staff.

A two-day suspension was ordered.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's liquor licence, alleging the appellant permitted unlawful gambling and served alcohol outside prescribed hours.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the presence of casino-style gaming machines with kill switches and reset buttons in a back room, along with video evidence of their use, established on a balance of probabilities that unlawful gambling was permitted.

However, the Tribunal found the evidence insufficient to prove alcohol was served outside prescribed hours, accepting the appellant's testimony that the bottles contained non-alcoholic flavourings.

The Tribunal found a breach of s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 but no breach of s. 25(1), and requested written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of Temple and Temple Tours Inc. under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to maintain minimum working capital.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the proceedings without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, which required the appellant to maintain its trust account, submit monthly trust reconciliations, file financial statements, and maintain minimum working capital.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration against the appellant travel agency for failing to properly supervise an outside sales agent, resulting in consumer losses.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement wherein the appellant accepted the allegations and agreed to strict conditions regarding trust account maintenance, reporting, and compliance with the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The Tribunal ordered that the issues were settled in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.

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 ordered that the appellant be registered as a motor vehicle dealer subject to numerous conditions, including employing an approved registered salesperson, providing a $20,000 irrevocable letter of credit, and complying with strict business, financial, and disclosure requirements.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to review its application for a liquor licence for a cafe and ice cream shop.

Local residents objected to the application, primarily citing concerns about potential noise from the patio and interior at night.

The Tribunal found that the objectors' subjective concerns were not supported on a valid objective basis and that they failed to establish that granting the licence was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to conditions regarding signage and a contact number for complaints.

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 pursuant to section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued the consent order, incorporating the settlement terms which included suspension of registrations pending repayment to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund, completion of an automotive certification course, and employment of a designated person-in-charge.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse registration of a motor vehicle dealer and to revoke registrations as motor vehicle salespersons.

The parties reached a settlement and requested 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 refused the dealer registration for Babs Enterprise but allowed Babatunde Ajayi and Ronke Ajayi to be registered as salespersons subject to strict conditions, including employment by an approved sponsoring dealer, restrictions on signing contracts, and mandatory education.

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 alcohol dependence.

The appellant had arrived at his doctor's office intoxicated.

Despite the appellant's claims of abstinence and remorse, the Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that his history of alcohol misuse and previous suspensions demonstrated a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal upheld the requirement for twelve months of proven abstinence or a supporting letter from an addiction specialist.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension for failing to provide a breath sample.

He argued that he was unable to blow into the approved screening device due to weakness from fasting, hot weather, and a history of sinus bradycardia.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence unpersuasive and noted the police officers observed no physical abnormalities or signs of weakness.

The suspension was confirmed.

The Appellant appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial Class AB driver's licence to a Class G licence due to a medical condition of seizures.

The Appellant argued his episodes were infrequent 'blackouts' and not seizures, pointing to normal medical investigations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant had suffered three documented episodes of sudden, unexplained loss of consciousness over 22 years, which multiple physicians initially described as seizures.

The Tribunal concluded that regardless of whether the episodes were seizures or unexplained blackouts, their recurrent nature posed a significant safety risk for commercial driving.

The Ministry's decision to downgrade the licence was confirmed.