OLAT 2016

The Appellants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their new home warranty claim.

The Appellants failed to request a conciliation inspection within the 30-day period ending on the 150th day after filing their claim forms, as required by O. Reg. 892/90.

The Tribunal found that the Appellants' claim was deemed withdrawn due to this failure and that there were no extraordinary circumstances to justify extending the time limits.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the suspension of his driver's licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, which was initiated following a medical report indicating alcohol and drug dependence and an unstable mental or emotional condition.

The appellant argued he had been abstinent from alcohol for six months and was undergoing monitoring by his family physician.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to submit the required medical evidence confirming his six-month abstinence and supporting the reinstatement of his driving privilege.

Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a written 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, concluding the proceedings on the terms set out in the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a 2007 motor vehicle accident and a subsequent medical report indicating substance abuse and potential psychiatric issues.

The Ministry of Transportation required updated medical and addiction assessments, which the appellant failed to provide for several years while continuing to drive with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the most up-to-date information supported a past substance dependency problem that would significantly interfere with the ability to drive safely, and the appellant had not provided current objective medical evidence to prove otherwise.

The Appellant, a commercial dump truck driver, appealed the Registrar's decision to downgrade his Class D licence to a Class G licence following a reported seizure.

The Registrar required a five-year seizure-free period for reinstatement, treating the condition as epilepsy.

The Tribunal found that the seizure was provoked by a treated dural arterio-venous fistula (DAVF) and that epilepsy had not been diagnosed.

Applying the CCMTA standard for provoked seizures, the Tribunal concluded the Appellant was fit to drive and set aside the Registrar's decision.

The appellant appealed a 90-day Administrative Driver's Licence Suspension imposed after he failed to provide a suitable breath sample.

The appellant argued he was unable to comply with the demand due to asthma and stress-related anxiety.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide medical evidence of respiratory dysfunction that would preclude his ability to comply, noting he did not request his inhaler or medical assistance at the time.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to alcohol dependence, seizure, and psychiatric condition.

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report from an emergency physician and subsequent assessments by the appellant's family doctor indicating alcohol dependence, depression, and a lack of insight and judgment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence, combined with a prior conviction for driving over the legal limit, demonstrated that the appellant was addicted to alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar's decision was confirmed.

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

The appellant, whose licence was suspended, was caught driving his children to a dental appointment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's family had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as his spouse owned a van and public transit was available.

The Tribunal concluded that the financial cost of the impoundment did not meet the regulatory criteria for exceptional hardship and confirmed the 45-day impoundment.

The appellant, a registered gaming assistant, appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming after he was charged with assault and obstructing a police officer following an off-duty incident at a hotel.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar failed to establish that the immediate suspension was necessary in the public interest.

The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence regarding the alleged assault, the appellant's compliance with disclosure requirements, his unblemished work record, and the Registrar's 37-day delay in issuing the suspension.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to set aside the suspension order.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after he loaned it to an acquaintance whose driver's licence was suspended.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by looking at a temporary out-of-province licence and claimed exceptional hardship because the truck was used for his auto repair business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not verifying the validity of the licence, and failed to establish exceptional hardship because he had access to alternative vehicles.

The Appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically related to bipolar disorder and alcohol dependence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant had been psychiatrically stable for over five years and had met the CCMTA medical standards for substance abuse remission, supported by favourable recommendations from an addictions specialist and his family physician.

The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant did not suffer from a condition or addiction likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and set aside the Registrar's decision.

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

She argued exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d), citing her own medical condition requiring an MRI, her daughter's severe anxiety and dental issues, and the lack of reasonable alternative transportation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle and that the impoundment posed a threat to the health and safety of persons ordinarily transported by it.

The appeal was allowed and the impoundment was set aside.

The appellant, a car leasing company, appealed the impoundment of one of its vehicles under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle had been leased to a customer but was impounded after being driven by the customer's spouse, whose driver's licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that it had no control over the lessee loaning the vehicle to a suspended driver.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of section 50.2(3)(a) of the Act from the viewpoint of the leasing company, as the suspended driver did not have the company's permission to drive the vehicle.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

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

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

The appellant argued that her son took the vehicle without her consent and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to attend physiotherapy appointments following hip replacement surgery.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of the Act and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.