OLAT 2016

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

The appellant argued the episode was a simple faint caused by dehydration and hyperkalemia, not epilepsy.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including reports from a neurologist who prescribed anti-seizure medication, supported the conclusion that the episode was a seizure.

Although a diagnosis of primary epilepsy was not definitively made, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's seizure disorder posed a significant risk of recurrence, justifying the licence suspension.

The Registrar's decision was confirmed.

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it exercised due diligence to ensure the driver was properly licensed.

The company had authorized one employee to drive, but that employee, contrary to company policy, allowed a newly hired co-worker with a suspended licence to drive the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the company could not rely on the due diligence defence because it did not attempt to confirm the suspended driver's licence status before he was allowed to use the vehicle, but rather entrusted it to another employee who breached company policy.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act after receiving a medical report of controlled narcolepsy.

The appellant argued her condition was stable, she had no daytime sleep attacks, and her cataplexy was well-controlled with medication.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was compliant with her treatment regimen and did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the vehicle was taken without consent, dismissing the stolen vehicle ground.

However, the Tribunal found exceptional hardship because the appellant, a single mother with significant medical issues including cancer and mental health conditions, had no reasonable alternative transportation to attend her specialist appointments.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his pickup truck under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship.

The appellant was caught driving the vehicle while his licence was suspended for dangerous driving.

His spouse, acting as agent, argued the truck was essential for their farm operations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that no alternative existed for the impounded vehicle, as they had not fully explored renting a truck or relying on neighbours.

Furthermore, any financial loss would be borne by the suspended driver, which precludes a finding of exceptional hardship under the regulations.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The Registrar required a six-month period of abstinence before reinstatement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant had taken significant steps towards rehabilitation, including completing a hospital-based treatment program and attending AA meetings.

The Tribunal concluded that the required period of abstinence could be safely reduced to four months and set aside the Registrar's decision, finding the Appellant was not addicted to alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its vehicle after the owner allowed a friend to drive it, unaware that the friend's driver's licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the owner exercised due diligence by asking if the licence was valid and checking its expiry date, and was not required to contact the Ministry of Transportation to verify its status late at night.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

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

The appellant argued that he was unable to comply with the demand due to bronchitis, relying on a medical diagnosis made three days after the incident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to prove that the appellant was medically unable to provide a forced expiration at the time of the demand, noting the police officer observed no symptoms of respiratory illness.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The Appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons following an episode of ventricular tachycardia that required pace termination from her implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

The Ministry of Transportation required a six-month observation period before reinstatement.

The Appellant argued that under the applicable medical guidelines, only a three-month observation period was required.

The Tribunal confirmed the suspension at the present time, finding that the Appellant currently suffers from a condition likely to significantly interfere with safe driving, but agreed with the Appellant that the three-month observation guideline was applicable for future reassessment.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to file an appeal of an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing.

The penalty was imposed for failing to provide required information in advance of a catered event.

The Tribunal applied the four factors from Manuel v. Registrar and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was excessive, and the appellant failed to demonstrate merit to the appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the sole shareholder allowed her father-in-law, a suspended driver, to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as the corporation owned eight other vehicles and the shareholder had access to her mother's vehicle.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to demonstrate an immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant sought dispute resolution for non-earner benefits and two physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer argued the applications were filed beyond the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found the non-earner benefits claim was statute-barred because the insurer provided a clear and unequivocal denial with proper dispute resolution information more than two years prior, and subsequent applications did not restart the clock.

However, the Tribunal found the treatment plan claims were not out of time because the insurer provided confusing and conflicting information in a later denial regarding the limitation period, which restarted the clock.

The treatment plan claims were permitted to proceed to a hearing.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued an Order of Monetary Penalty of $2,000 against the appellant establishment for allegedly exceeding its licensed capacity by 10 patrons.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the inspector's evidence and noted that only one count was performed, which was not a precise 'count-out'.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the establishment was over capacity.

The monetary penalty was set aside.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse her registration as a real estate salesperson under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The refusal was based on the appellant's past criminal conviction for sexual exploitation of a young person, for which she was still on probation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, which involved a significant breach of trust and a five-year improper relationship, provided reasonable grounds to believe she would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

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

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 vehicle was impounded after the appellant lent it to a friend who was driving with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had a reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, as he owned a second vehicle.

Furthermore, the financial burden of the impoundment fees did not meet the regulatory definition of an immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the appellant's registration as a gaming supplier (seller of lottery products).

The appellant's principal admitted to failing to disclose charges, convictions, and judgment debts on the renewal application, and had a history of regulatory non-compliance and outstanding debts.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe it would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, and honesty.

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

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their year-end warranty claim for defective carpet.

Tarion denied the claim because the appellants failed to request a conciliation inspection within the regulatory time period.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants had continued to work with the builder to resolve the issue and were unaware of the builder's final refusal until after the deadline had passed.

The Tribunal held that these facts constituted extraordinary circumstances under section 5.10 of the Regulation and ordered Tarion to extend the time limit and assess the claim on its merits.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed a friend, whose licence was suspended, to drive it for his moving business.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to make active inquiries about the driver's licence status despite knowing of past issues.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had reasonable alternatives, such as renting trucks, and his business continued without significant or lasting loss.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming imposed a $2,000 monetary penalty on the appellant licensee for permitting an intoxicated patron on the premises, contrary to section 45(1) of Regulation 719 under the Liquor Licence Act.

Two undercover inspectors observed a patron displaying clear signs of intoxication, including slurred speech, unsteadiness, and unusual behavior with servers.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal preferred the independent evidence of the inspectors over the appellant's employees and security video.

The Tribunal found that the patron was drunk and the servers knew or ought to have known of his condition, thereby confirming the monetary penalty.

The Appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Registrar alleged the Appellants operated as unregistered dealers ('curbsiders'), failed to provide vehicle history disclosures to vulnerable consumers, and forged signatures on sales documents.

The Tribunal found the Appellants' evidence lacked credibility and that they had engaged in serious derelictions of their responsibilities under the Act, including selling vehicles without disclosure and forging a colleague's signature.

The Tribunal concluded the Appellants' past conduct provided reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.