OLAT 2015

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a medical report of a hypoglycemic episode.

The appellant, who has Type 1 diabetes, experienced the episode while walking in a park, not while driving.

Medical evidence confirmed he had regained stable glycemic control, uses a continuous glucose monitor, and has excellent insight into his condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant does not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, despite not meeting the six-month episode-free guideline.

The suspension was set aside.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend her driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension followed a medical condition report indicating alcohol abuse after the appellant was involved in a motor vehicle collision.

The appellant argued that she was not intoxicated at the time of the collision, had abstained from alcohol since the incident, and her liver enzymes had normalized.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had a history of elevated liver enzymes due to alcohol use, establishing an addiction.

Although the appellant showed progress by abstaining for a short period, the Tribunal concluded that the addiction was not sufficiently stabilized, as she had not attended counselling or an alcohol treatment program.

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 impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's mother was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative transportation available to get to her two jobs, despite the inconvenience.

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's motor vehicle was impounded for 45 days after she lent it to a friend whose driver's licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant appealed the impoundment to the Licence Appeal Tribunal on the grounds of due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not asking her friend about the status of his driver's licence before giving him the keys.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to public transportation and alternative vehicles.

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

The vehicle was impounded after a mechanic, whose driver's licence was suspended, test-drove it while repairing it.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship as the vehicle was essential to its tire recycling business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no alternative to the vehicle, the financial loss would be immediate, significant, and lasting, and the impact would be on the appellant rather than the suspended driver.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant demonstrated exceptional hardship and ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

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

The suspension followed an emergency department visit where toxicology tests confirmed cocaine use, leading to a Medical Condition Report citing drug dependence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant suffers from an addiction likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the suspension but recommended the Ministry drop its requirement for a mental health assessment, as there was no evidence of emotional instability.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship and that the vehicle was stolen.

The appellant's son, whose licence was suspended, took the vehicle without the appellant's knowledge or consent.

The Tribunal dismissed the exceptional hardship ground, finding that alternatives to the vehicle were available.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground that the vehicle was stolen, as it was taken without consent and the owner was unaware of the son's licence suspension.

The Registrar was ordered to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a seasonal restaurant located near a provincial park in a small, historically alcohol-free community.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from residents concerned about safety, lighting, noise, and the proximity to the park.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were largely speculative and that the appellant's proposed self-imposed restrictions demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with the community.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue the licence, subject to conditions restricting the hours of alcohol service and requiring the posting of contact information for complaints.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to review an application for a liquor sales licence.

At the hearing, the parties reached a settlement of all outstanding issues.

The Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to issue the liquor sales licence with attached conditions, including providing a contact number for residents and posting signs encouraging departing patrons to be considerate of the community.

Additional non-licence conditions were agreed upon regarding noise and line-up management.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming imposed a $750 monetary penalty on the appellant licensee for allegedly permitting drunkenness in its establishment, contrary to section 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the evidence fell short of establishing that the patron in question was drunk or that the appellant permitted drunkenness, noting the patron's unsteadiness was consistent with recent injuries from a snowmobile accident.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to set aside the order of monetary penalty.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration 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, which required the appellant to complete an automotive certification course, restricted him from being a final signatory on sales or lease contracts for two years, and imposed conditions on transferring his registration and disclosing material facts about motor vehicles.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the travel agent registration of ISX International Student Exchange of Canada Ltd. due to failures to file financial statements and non-compliance with working capital and trust account requirements.

The registrant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties reached a settlement and the Tribunal issued a consent order without a hearing, allowing the registrant to maintain its registration subject to strict reporting, trust accounting, and working capital conditions.

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 issued a consent order incorporating the settlement terms, which included the appellant agreeing not to apply to be a dealer for two years, working only for a franchise dealer, and not holding any management or control positions in a dealership for two years.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to refuse to issue a Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's past safety record and its relationship to another company with a poor safety record owned by the appellant's father.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's owner lacked the necessary training, experience, and safety plan to manage a commercial vehicle operation safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the refusal.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to revoke the appellant's liquor licence following multiple violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, including serving alcohol after hours, obstructing police, and breaching a condition requiring a manager to be present.

The Tribunal previously found the violations substantiated.

In this decision on sanction, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to accept responsibility, showed no evidence of remedial measures, and demonstrated he was not deserving of the privilege of holding a liquor licence.

The Tribunal ordered the immediate revocation of the licence.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his 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 issued the consent order, imposing terms and conditions on the appellant's registration, including requirements to disclose findings of guilt, comply with a consumer proposal, and refrain from holding a controlling interest in a dealership.

The appellant licensee appealed a Notice of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence.

The Tribunal previously found the appellant breached the Liquor Licence Act by selling liquor to an intoxicated person and permitting drunkenness, which tragically resulted in the patron's death in an accident on the way home.

In determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal weighed factors including public protection, deterrence, and the licensee's lack of remedial measures.

The Tribunal ordered a 55-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration 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, attaching terms and conditions to the appellant's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson, including restrictions on his role in dealerships and a requirement to repay a $41,000 debt to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying warranty coverage for squeaky hardwood floors in their new home.

The appellants argued the floors were defective, while the builder and Tarion maintained the subfloor met the Ontario Building Code and the noise was due to humidity issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the movement and noise in the floors exceeded acceptable imperfections and violated Tarion's Construction Performance Guidelines, constituting a breach of warranty under section 13(1) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to repair or replace the affected areas of the floors.

The appellant, a motor vehicle dealer, brought a motion to stay an order revoking his registration pending his appeal.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the level of assistance provided to the self-represented appellant at the original hearing, the appellant failed to establish irreparable harm.

The appellant's evidence regarding financial harm and loss of business was contradictory and unsupported by documentary evidence.

Furthermore, the balance of inconvenience favoured denying the stay due to the public interest in preventing the appellant from operating in violation of the Act.

The motion for a stay was denied.