OLAT 2016

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

His previous registration was revoked in 2013 due to a persistent pattern of providing false information, failing to disclose bankruptcies, and outstanding criminal charges.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant had taken some steps to address his past issues, such as making small payments towards his bankruptcy and resolving his criminal charges, these actions were taken shortly before his application and did not constitute sufficient new evidence or clearly demonstrate a material change in circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar's proposal to refuse registration was upheld.

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

The suspension followed an incident where police apprehended the Appellant under the Mental Health Act after a citizen complained of erratic driving and the Appellant refused to identify herself while standing on a sidewalk wearing a mask.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence of psychosis or a personality disorder that would justify a suspension, noting that attending psychiatrists did not make a diagnosis of a mental condition and discharged her with no safety concerns.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision.

The Appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence due to a reported cocaine addiction.

The Registrar received a Medical Condition Report indicating drug dependence and a history of using cocaine and driving.

The Appellant argued he was an occasional binge user and had abstained for a few months.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding the Appellant's recent and extensive history of cocaine use supported a finding of addiction likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and noted the lack of medical evidence supporting rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized while being driven by her son whose licence was suspended due to a dangerous driving conviction.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence because she was present when her son was sentenced and reasonably believed his probation order permitted him to drive for work-related purposes.

The Tribunal found the appellant's belief was reasonable and that she met her obligation to act prudently.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The Appellant appealed a decision by the Minister of Transportation to downgrade his commercial AZ driver's licence to a Class G licence following medical reports of two seizures.

The national medical guidelines for commercial drivers diagnosed with epilepsy require a five-year seizure-free period.

The Appellant had been seizure-free for approximately 17 months.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the downgrade, finding that the Appellant suffered from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely and that insufficient time had passed to deviate from the medical guidelines.

The Appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical report indicating alcohol dependence.

The Registrar maintained the suspension, requiring a one-year period of abstinence per CCMTA guidelines.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision, finding that the Appellant's demonstrated six months of abstinence, improving liver function, ongoing addictions counselling, and strong family support provided sufficient reason to deviate from the standard 12-month guideline.

The Tribunal concluded the Appellant was not addicted to alcohol to an extent likely to interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after it was driven by her boyfriend, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, she exercised due diligence, and the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the vehicle was not taken without consent, the appellant made no active inquiries about the driver's licence status, and there was no exceptional hardship because the appellant had rented an alternative vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son, a suspended driver, drove it without her permission.

The appellant had only authorized her son's friend, a licensed driver, to operate the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the son's unauthorized use meant the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act at the time it was detained.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a suspended driver.

She argued she exercised due diligence by asking the driver if he had a licence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that merely asking about the licence without asking to see it did not constitute due diligence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the appellant had access to other vehicles registered in her name.

The appellant car rental company appealed a 180-day vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act after a renter was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the defence of due diligence, asserting that its employees visually inspected the renter's apparently valid driver's licence and relied on a signed rental agreement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that for a high-volume commercial rental business with a history of prior impoundments, due diligence required taking the additional step of verifying the licence status using the Ministry's available telephone or online checking service.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after its employee was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by repeatedly asking the employee for his licence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship to its business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that allowing the employee to drive for months without ever seeing a valid licence did not constitute due diligence.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant's financial difficulties predated the impoundment and that the loss of the vehicle amounted to inconvenience rather than exceptional hardship as defined by the legislation.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing he exercised due diligence in determining whether his son's driver's licence was suspended.

The appellant had been out of the country for a year and assumed his son's licence remained valid, taking no steps to verify its status.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that due diligence requires some action on the part of the owner, and assuming validity without inquiry is insufficient.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle had been driven by a suspended driver who resided with the appellant.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as she had access to public transit and her employment was not in jeopardy.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the vehicle was taken without the owner's consent, satisfying the statutory ground that the vehicle was 'stolen' for the purposes of the impoundment legislation.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The Appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his commercial driver's licence following a report of a possible seizure.

The Appellant had been found unresponsive by his daughter, but subsequent neurological assessments, including an EEG, CT scan, and MRI, were normal and did not result in a definitive diagnosis of epilepsy or seizure.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the evidence did not support a finding that the Appellant suffered from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The suspension was set aside.

The appellant motor vehicle dealer appealed the 45-day impoundment of its customer shuttle van after an employee drove it while his driver's licence was suspended.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by checking employee licences annually, though it missed the most recent check due to an internal merger, and claimed the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the 17-month gap in checking the employee's licence did not constitute due diligence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded van and failed to demonstrate an immediate, significant, and lasting loss.

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

The vehicle had been driven by the appellant's son's fiancée's brother, who was a suspended driver.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and the primary driver of the vehicle both had reasonable transportation alternatives.

As inconvenience does not constitute exceptional hardship under the legislation, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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 the appellant's friend's roommate was caught driving it while disqualified.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship to his friend, who needed the vehicle to pick up her daughters.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to show there were no reasonable alternatives for transportation, and noting that the friend's own driver's licence had since been suspended indefinitely, rendering the hardship argument moot.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson, alleging he induced dealers to rent property using forged zoning documents and misled the Registrar.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while it was not proven the appellant personally forged the documents, he was complicit in a scheme to rent property under false pretences and provided forged zoning letters to tenants knowing they would be used in registration applications.

Finding the appellant lacked integrity and honesty, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke his registration.

The Appellant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate due to an extremely high safety violation rate.

The Appellant argued that a recent change in ownership to a new controlling mind justified allowing the company to continue operating.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant's safety record, which placed it among the worst 0.1% of operators in Ontario, and its association with a related person whose own CVOR had been cancelled, provided reason to believe it would not operate safely.

The Tribunal rejected the new owner's evidence of future compliance plans as unsupported and ordered the Registrar to carry out the cancellation.

The appellant applied for additional licensed capacity under the Liquor Licence Act.

Several resident objectors initially opposed the application.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant reached a private agreement with the spokesperson for the majority of the objectors, who then withdrew their objections.

The remaining objectors did not attend the hearing.

The Registrar took no position on the application.

The Tribunal approved the application for additional licensed capacity, directing the Registrar to issue the licence subject to usual requirements, noting that the private agreement terms would not be conditions on the licence.