OLAT 2015

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

She argued that her severe asthma and anxiety prevented her from providing a satisfactory sample despite 12 attempts.

The Tribunal preferred the police evidence and the respondent's medical consultation report, finding that a history of asthma alone does not justify a refusal without a pulmonary function test confirming an inability to provide a sample.

The suspension was confirmed.

The appellant travel agent appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration issued by the Registrar under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 for failing to file financial statements and follow proper trust accounting procedures.

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 maintain proper trust accounts, submit monthly reconciliations, file annual financial statements, and maintain minimum working capital.

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

The appellant filed an appeal 67 days after the 15-day appeal period expired and brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test for extending time and found that the appellant had no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was lengthy and unjustified, and the merits of the appeal were weak given that this was the third time the vehicle had been impounded with the same driver.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The Appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act due to a medical condition report indicating renal disease and unstable mental illness.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant's non-compliance with his dialysis treatment had led to episodes of delirium, which significantly interfered with his ability to drive safely.

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

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's grandson, a suspended driver, was stopped by police while driving it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was precluded from appealing on the grounds of exceptional hardship under section 50.2(4) of the Act because a vehicle owned by her had been previously impounded on three occasions.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for life.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as borrowing from neighbours and using public transportation.

As the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized after she loaned it to a driver whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by looking at the driver's licence previously and claimed exceptional hardship due to her remote location and employment needs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not checking the licence's expiry date.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to an alternative vehicle and her employment was not in jeopardy.

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 husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The appellant argued that the loss of the vehicle caused exceptional hardship because she relied on it to care for her elderly mother.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the impoundment caused great inconvenience, public transit was available as an alternative and there was no evidence of significant financial loss or threat to health and safety as required by the legislation.

The appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal a vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The notice of appeal was filed well outside the 15-day prescribed period.

Neither the appellant nor their representative attended the scheduled teleconference hearing.

Consequently, the tribunal could not determine the preliminary motion or the appeal on the merits, and the vehicle remained detained.

The appellant appealed Tarion's denial of her claim for warranty coverage regarding a new condominium unit.

The appellant sought the return of her deposit, arguing she had validly rescinded the agreement due to delayed closing.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had exhausted her right to rescind the agreement when she signed an occupancy agreement and took possession of the unit.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion's decision to deny the claim was upheld.

The appellant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its plates due to a poor safety record.

The appellant's operations manager had a history of managing other companies with cancelled or refused CVORs and outstanding fines.

Despite the appellant's recent hiring of a safety consultant, the Tribunal found the appellant had a pattern of poor safety and little demonstrated action to improve.

The Tribunal concluded there was reason to believe the appellant would not operate safely and ordered the Registrar to carry out the cancellation and seizure.

The Appellant, a registered gaming assistant, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his registration.

The Registrar sought revocation because the Appellant refused to be interviewed by an inspector regarding criminal charges that had been laid against him, which were later withdrawn.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant breached his duty to facilitate an investigation under section 30 of the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

However, the Tribunal determined that revocation was too harsh a penalty given the Appellant's otherwise unblemished record and ultimate compliance.

The Tribunal substituted a 10-day suspension.

During an appeal regarding a new home warranty claim, the appellants requested costs for a vacated hearing date after the respondent had no witnesses available.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent's inability to schedule an expert witness was largely due to the appellants unreasonably prolonging a previous cross-examination.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith under Rule 14.5 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued an order regarding the use of recordings and transcripts of an ongoing proceeding.

The Tribunal replaced a temporary order and directed that while parties would not be restricted from accessing the recordings, they could only use them to assist in preparing their case.

The parties were expressly prohibited from publishing, broadcasting, reproducing, or disseminating the recordings or transcripts to anyone not a party to the proceeding.

The Tribunal also ordered the immediate removal of any previously uploaded or published recordings.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying compensation for numerous alleged construction defects and unauthorized substitutions in their new home.

The appellants claimed the builder failed to comply with the agreement of purchase and sale, particularly regarding the installation of marble tile flooring with a reduced scratch coat.

The Tribunal found that while the flooring installation was an unauthorized substitution, the appellants failed to prove any resulting damages, as expert evidence established the as-built floor was structurally sound and performing well.

The Tribunal dismissed all but one of the appellants' claims, awarding $3,500 for a window that was installed in the wrong location contrary to the contract.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim in part.

During the hearing, the appellants unexpectedly concluded their evidence early.

As the respondent's witnesses were not immediately available to proceed the following day, the Tribunal vacated the next scheduled hearing date and adjourned the matter for continuation.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days, alleging two incidents of permitting disorderly conduct and failing to take reasonable measures to deter it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the licensee in breach of s. 45(1) of the regulation for an incident where a security staff member excessively assaulted a patron.

However, the Tribunal found no breach of s. 45.1 for a separate incident involving a patron's altercation with a police officer, as the security staff acted reasonably by stepping back once police took control.

The matter of sanction was deferred for written submissions.

Following a finding that the licensee breached multiple provisions of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, including permitting drunkenness and failing to facilitate an inspection, the parties provided written submissions on sanction.

The Registrar sought a 25 to 30-day suspension, while the licensee argued for 7 to 10 days.

The Tribunal ordered a 23-day suspension, emphasizing specific and general deterrence given the significance and repetition of the breaches shortly after the licence was issued.

The appellants brought a motion seeking various procedural and substantive relief, including an investigation into missing hearing recordings, authorization to record the hearing themselves, a review of a previous order, and determinations regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and alleged bullying.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the issues of bias and bullying had already been addressed in a previous order, and that the appellants' recourse for challenging that order was to appeal.

The Tribunal also denied the request for the appellants to record the proceedings, noting that only one official record should exist.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the appellant's registration as a gaming assistant, relying on her past conduct during an investigation into criminal charges that were ultimately withdrawn.

The appellant appealed the proposed order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's unassailable ten-year work record and the withdrawal of the criminal charges outweighed the Registrar's concerns regarding her credibility in a previous hearing.

The Tribunal concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposed order.