OLAT 2015

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 30 days for permitting an intoxicated person to remain on the premises.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the patron was intoxicated and that the bartender, despite cutting the patron off, allowed him to continue consuming alcohol and migrate to other areas of the bar.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant permitted drunkenness on the premises contrary to s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 and ordered written submissions on sanction.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 45 days due to two alleged incidents of overcrowding.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal heard evidence from inspectors who used manual counters to determine the premises were over capacity on both dates.

The appellant argued the inspectors' counting method was unreliable and that its own door counts were accurate.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted evidence of the inspectors, finding the appellant breached s. 43 of Regulation 719 on both occasions.

The parties were directed to provide written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the travel agent registration of Akkiratourz Ltd. for failing to file financial statements and maintain minimum working capital.

The registrant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the proceedings without a hearing.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, incorporating the Minutes of Settlement which required the registrant to file financial statements, maintain minimum working capital, and comply with trust account requirements.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed after he failed to provide a suitable breath sample.

He argued that he was unable to blow into the breathalyzer due to chronic bronchitis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the medical evidence weak and noted that the appellant did not exhibit respiratory distress at the scene, nor did he request his inhaler until an hour after his arrest.

The Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove the appellant was unable to provide a breath sample for a medical reason and confirmed the suspension.

The appellant sold his vehicle to a buyer who subsequently drove it while her licence was suspended, resulting in the vehicle's impoundment.

Because the buyer had not yet registered the transfer, the appellant remained the registered owner and was held liable for the impoundment charges.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal seeking a declaration that he was no longer the owner and therefore not liable for the charges.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief, as its authority is strictly limited to ordering the release of a vehicle under specific statutory grounds, none of which applied.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motorcycle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by the driver and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was present when the driver took the motorcycle and did not establish that it was stolen.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim, noting the appellant had other registered vehicles and could not rely on impoundment costs as a basis for financial hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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 reported diagnosis of alcohol dependence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had not maintained a sufficient period of abstinence from alcohol to demonstrate stability, having consumed alcohol while enrolled in a withdrawal management program.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's condition was 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, a commercial truck driver, appealed the Registrar's decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence following a single unprovoked seizure.

The Registrar required the appellant to be seizure-free for 12 months before reinstating his commercial driving privileges, in accordance with CCMTA and CMA guidelines.

The appellant argued for early reinstatement due to financial hardship and normal test results.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision, finding that the appellant currently suffers from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely, and that the 12-month seizure-free period is necessary for public safety.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following an unsolicited Medical Condition Report from a psychiatrist diagnosing him with an unstable mental or emotional illness.

The appellant disputed the diagnosis but admitted to experiencing delusions while driving.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the appellant's condition likely significantly interfered with his ability to drive safely, and noted the absence of an up-to-date medical assessment confirming stability and recommending reinstatement.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for life.

She argued that she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish due diligence because she denied her husband was driving at all, rather than showing she took reasonable steps to ensure he had a valid licence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to transportation alternatives and the legislation precludes considering mere inconvenience or financial loss.

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 vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative transportation arrangements and that the situation amounted to an inconvenience rather than exceptional hardship as defined by the legislation.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

During an appeal regarding a new home warranty claim, the self-represented appellants alleged for a third time that the presiding adjudicator was biased against them because she sustained the respondent's evidentiary objections.

The adjudicator invited submissions on whether there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no reasonable apprehension of bias, noting that adverse rulings do not constitute bias and the appellants presented no new facts.

The Tribunal awarded $1,000 in costs to the respondent, finding the appellants' repetitive bias allegations and disruptive behaviour to be unreasonable and frivolous, resulting in the loss of a full hearing day.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's ex-boyfriend, a suspended driver, drove it while the appellant was passed out intoxicated in the passenger seat.

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not consent to the suspended driver using her vehicle, as she was unconscious and had hidden her keys to prevent such an occurrence.

Applying the definition of "stolen" from Marshall v. Ontario, the Tribunal concluded the vehicle was taken without consent and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after allowing a suspended driver to operate it.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by asking the driver if she had a valid licence and claimed exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for her employment as a nurse practitioner.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that merely accepting the driver's word did not constitute due diligence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternative transportation options, including carpooling and renting a vehicle, and earned a sufficient income to mitigate the financial impact.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her vehicle after her brother was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She argued that she exercised due diligence by asking to see his licence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that she failed to exercise due diligence because she did not properly examine the licence, which was invalid.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship as the appellant and her mother had access to public transportation.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended after he collapsed and was hospitalized with opioids in his blood, prompting a medical condition report.

The Registrar required a Substance Abuse Assessment and confirmation of three months of mental stability, which the appellant failed to provide.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the appellant suffers from a mental condition and drug addiction likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and that the Registrar's requirements for reinstatement were justified.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant, whose driver's licence was suspended, drove it without the permission of his common-law partner, who was the sole insured driver and primary user.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal rejected the stolen vehicle argument but found that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to the common-law partner.

She relied on the vehicle for her employment as a personal support worker and suffered an immediate, significant, and lasting loss of income due to the impoundment.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed after he failed to provide a breath sample.

The appellant argued he was unable to provide a sample due to a medical condition, specifically a long uvula, and provided a doctor's note.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the police officer's testimony credible that the appellant was obstructing the breathalyzer tube with his tongue.

The Tribunal concluded the medical note did not establish a rational medical basis for the inability to provide a sample and confirmed the suspension.

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

The appellant and his wife claimed that the impounded four-wheel-drive vehicle was necessary to access their home via a steep hill, and its absence caused physical strain and inconvenience.

The Tribunal found that while the family experienced inconvenience, they had access to other vehicles and their situation did not meet the statutory threshold for exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

She had lent her vehicle to a friend who, unbeknownst to her, was a suspended driver.

The appellant, a single mother of two, argued that the impoundment caused extreme financial hardship and inconvenience due to childcare and work transportation needs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the appellant faced inconvenience and financial cost, she had an alternative means of transportation (taxicabs) and did not meet the strict statutory criteria for exceptional hardship.