OLAT 2015

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence following a stroke.

The Ministry of Transportation required a satisfactory driving evaluation from a rehabilitation centre for reinstatement.

The appellant argued that his residual symptoms had resolved and a functional assessment was unnecessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that recent medical notes indicated persistent residual symptoms, and without a complete medical assessment, the extent of their resolution could not be defined.

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

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend her driver's licence due to a diagnosis of narcolepsy.

The Registrar relied on the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, which require a 12-month symptom-free period.

The appellant had been symptom-free for just over seven months on medication.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was compliant with treatment, her physician felt she was safe to drive, and she had never experienced sleepiness while driving.

The Tribunal held that the 12-month guideline was not absolute and that the appellant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was set aside.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to drug dependence following a motor vehicle collision.

The appellant argued for reinstatement based on his recent completion of a rapid detoxification procedure and implantation of a Naltrexone pellet.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that a one-month period of abstinence was insufficient to demonstrate stability and that the appellant's addiction remained likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 60 days after a patron was struck and killed by a vehicle shortly after leaving the appellant's premises.

The Tribunal found that the appellant breached the Liquor Licence Act by serving the patron when he was or appeared to be intoxicated, and by permitting drunkenness on the premises.

However, the Tribunal found no evidence that the appellant engaged in practices encouraging immoderate consumption.

The matter was left open for submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for permitting an underage patron to have alcohol and permitting drunkenness on the premises.

The Tribunal held that the defence of due diligence is not available for the underage drinking offence under section 30(4) of the Liquor Licence Act, confirming the $2,500 penalty.

However, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not permit drunkenness under section 45(1) of the Regulation, as staff acted with reasonable dispatch upon observing signs of intoxication, and set aside the $1,500 penalty.

The appellants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their second-year warranty claims for various alleged defects in their new home, including insufficient attic insulation, basement wall cracks, and sloping front porch steps.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the claims were either first-year warranty items, previously settled, unsupported by evidence of health and safety risks, or specifically excluded by statute, such as the subsidence of land affecting the front steps.

The appellant appealed a decision by the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) denying his claim for compensation from the Compensation Fund following the bankruptcy of a travel agency.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's claim was filed after the strict six-month limitation period set out in O. Reg. 26/05.

As the legislation provides no discretion to extend the time limit for making a claim to the Board, the appeal was dismissed and the claim was refused.

The Appellant brought a motion to compel the Respondent to abide by a pre-hearing consent order that allowed the Appellant to register as a vendor under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion to vary or read down the order, arguing that new information from the Elliot Lake Inquiry report regarding the Appellant's principal raised serious concerns about honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal found that the new information constituted changed circumstances that provided reasonable grounds to question the correctness of the consent order.

The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's motion and amended the pre-hearing order to delete the consent provision and broaden the scope of the upcoming hearing.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence in verifying her boyfriend's driver's licence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to make sufficient inquiries into the status of the driver's licence.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because alternative transportation was available to the appellant, precluding consideration of other hardship factors under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appellant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its plates.

The Registrar issued the order based on the poor safety record of a related company owned by the appellant's husband, and the transfer of vehicles and drivers from that company to the appellant.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence that she had no business relationship with her husband to lack credibility, and concluded that the appellant's company was an attempt to avoid the consequences of the related company's CVOR cancellation.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's order.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after she allowed her partner, a suspended driver, to drive it.

The appellant filed an appeal of the impoundment seven days after the 15-day statutory deadline.

She brought a motion for an extension of time to file the appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the appellant failed to establish reasonable grounds for the delay and that the appeal had little reasonable chance of success on the merits, as she had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by a suspended driver and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had left the keys accessible to the suspended driver, negating the claim that the vehicle was stolen.

The Tribunal also found that alternative transportation was available, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the suspension of his Class 'G' driver's licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

The suspension followed a Medical Condition Report filed by an emergency room physician after the appellant experienced a severe hypoglycaemic episode at work.

The appellant argued that he had changed jobs to avoid irregular shifts and had never experienced hypoglycaemia while driving.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal upheld the suspension, agreeing with the Registrar that a 6-month period of stability, as recommended by the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, was required before reinstating the licence.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse his registration as a gaming assistant.

The Registrar refused the application based on the appellant's criminal record and his recent, repeated non-compliance with a term of his wife's lottery retailer registration that prohibited him from being involved in the business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the criminal convictions were dated, the recent breaches of the registration terms provided reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

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

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant argued that the loss of the vehicle caused hardship for his daughter's employment and his own work.

The Tribunal found that the appellant managed to provide alternative transportation and did not suffer immediate, significant, and lasting financial or employment loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the appellant's registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson, alleging repeated non-disclosure of past criminal convictions and trading in vehicles without registration.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant did repeatedly fail to disclose past convictions on multiple applications, the Registrar failed to prove the allegations of unregistered vehicle sales.

The Tribunal concluded that the non-disclosure alone did not provide reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to grant the appellant registration as a motor vehicle salesperson only, subject to strict conditions including employment only by a franchised dealer and mandatory disclosure of any future charges or convictions.

The Appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to refuse to issue it a Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR).

The Registrar refused the application on the basis that the Appellant was related to two other towing companies with poor safety records and conditional safety ratings.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the anti-avoidance provisions of the Highway Traffic Act and found that the three corporations operated as a single extended entity with common control.

The Tribunal upheld the Registrar's decision, concluding that the risk of avoiding sanctions outweighed recent safety improvements, and ordered the Registrar to carry out the refusal.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a real estate broker.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's criminal conviction for sexual assault against an employee and his failure to disclose a collateral property management business on his renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, taken together, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the appellant's registration.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an employee whose licence was suspended for life.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to verify the employee's licence despite knowing he might drive company vehicles, and that the business had alternatives available, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's mother, whose driver's licence was suspended, took the vehicle without permission and was involved in an accident.

The Tribunal found the appellant credible and concluded that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act, as it was taken without the owner's consent.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.