OLAT 2016

The homeowner appealed a Tarion Warranty Corporation decision denying claims that his master bedroom was smaller than the Ontario Building Code minimum and that a flooring transition was defective.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the bedroom size met the OBC requirements when measured according to industry practice, and that the flooring transition was suitably eased and not defective.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence due to three unexplained episodes of loss of consciousness while driving.

The appellant argued the episodes were caused by an exhaust leak in his truck, not a medical condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the exhaust leak theory, noting normal CO2 test results and that another driver operated the truck without issue.

The Tribunal concluded it was more likely than not that the episodes were caused by a medical condition that significantly interfered with the appellant's ability to drive safely, and confirmed the suspension.

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's son, whose licence was suspended, was caught driving it.

The appellant claimed financial hardship because he could not afford the impoundment fees without incurring credit card debt.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment, finding that the appellant had a second vehicle available for his use.

Under O. Reg. 631/98, financial hardship cannot be considered if the owner has an alternative to the impounded vehicle.

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 asking the employee for a copy of his licence and relying on its insurance company, and claimed exceptional hardship due to financial struggles.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that simply obtaining a copy of a licence without a verification policy did not constitute due diligence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had other vehicles and failed to demonstrate that renting a replacement was not a viable alternative.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that confirmed the Minister of Transportation's downgrade of his commercial driver's licence from Class B to Class G due to his use of inotropic drugs for a heart condition.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the Tribunal made a significant error of fact by concluding the appellant was taking Amiodarone on a daily basis, despite a medical report indicating he had ceased the medication.

A rehearing was ordered on the issue of whether the appellant's prior use of inotropes significantly interferes with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

The Appellants brought a motion for costs against Tarion Warranty Corporation and the builder, Birani Homes Limited, alleging unprofessional conduct, manipulated test results, and harassment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the allegations under Rule 14 of its Rules of Practice, which requires conduct to be unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith to attract costs.

The Tribunal found that while Tarion could have handled the matter better and the parties disagreed on expert choices, the conduct complained of did not meet the high threshold required for a costs award.

The motion for costs was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after her husband drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant filed her appeal five days late and brought a motion for an extension of time, which the Tribunal granted.

On the merits, the appellant argued that she needed the vehicle for work, to transport her children, and to care for her elderly parents, and that renting a vehicle was unaffordable.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that no reasonable alternative existed or that the financial loss would be immediate, significant, and lasting as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the Registrar's proposals to refuse and revoke their gaming supplier registrations.

The Registrar's proposals were based on the appellants' failure to disclose criminal and provincial offence charges, including possession of unmarked cigarettes, on their registration and renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants' past conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe they would not act as suppliers in accordance with law, integrity, honesty, or the public interest.

The appeals were dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposals.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming imposed a monetary penalty on the appellant establishment for allegedly permitting drunkenness, contrary to s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while a patron was drunk, the establishment's manager acted reasonably by cutting off alcohol service, removing alcohol from the room, and allowing the patron to wait inside for a safe ride home rather than forcing him outside in the cold.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant did not permit drunkenness and ordered the monetary penalty set aside.

The appellant appealed the Director's proposal to refuse to issue a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station licence.

The Director relied on the appellant's extensive history of past misconduct, including multiple convictions under the Highway Traffic Act and the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, as well as previous licence revocations.

The Tribunal found that the Director met the onus of establishing reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate the station in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

As the appellant called no evidence to demonstrate how he had learned from past mistakes, the appeal was dismissed and the Director was directed to carry out the proposal.

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

The Registrar relied on the CCMTA Guidelines, which require a six-month seizure-free period before reinstatement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal set aside the suspension, finding sufficient reason to deviate from the guidelines because the appellant's nocturnal seizures had resolved with medication, his single daytime seizure occurred over six months prior while unmedicated, and his neurologist supported reinstatement.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse to renew the appellant's manufacturers' licences because the appellant underwent a share transfer without applying for a licence transfer and continued to operate.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing the share transfer was an error intended as a corporate buy-back.

The Tribunal rejected the error explanation but found that the mere failure to apply for a transfer on time was insufficient to provide reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to refuse to renew the licences.

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

The appellant argued he was medically unable to comply with the demand due to a combination of post-traumatic stress disorder, antidepressant withdrawal, and intoxication.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the police officers' evidence credible and consistent, establishing that the appellant understood the demand, the equipment, and the consequences of refusal.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant failed to prove he was medically unable to provide a sample and confirmed the suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to reports of substance abuse and a seizure.

The Tribunal reviewed medical evidence, including a neurologist's report and negative drug screens, finding that the appellant's loss of consciousness was an isolated incident related to accidental drug ingestion, and his alcohol use was recreational rather than dependent.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to demonstrate the appellant had an addiction or medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and set aside the licence suspension.

The appellants appealed the Travel Industry Council of Ontario's decision to deny their claims for compensation from the Travel Industry Compensation Fund.

The appellants had paid for airline tickets through an employee of a registered travel agency, but the agency failed and the tickets were never provided.

TICO denied the claims because the payments were deposited into third-party accounts and lacked proper receipts.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the appellants reasonably believed they were paying a registered travel agent and that their credible oral testimony corroborated the available documentation.

The Tribunal ordered TICO to reimburse the appellants in full.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse to renew the appellant's liquor sales licence.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

At the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the appellant withdrew its appeal, and the Registrar undertook to treat any future application within eight months as an application to reinstate the licence, provided the appellant regains possession of the premises.

The matter was concluded on this basis.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought caregiver and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Respondent denied caregiver benefits, arguing the Applicant did not reside with his parents and failed to provide proof of incurred expenses.

The Respondent also denied a rehabilitation benefit for an electric assist motor bicycle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant 'resided with' his parents based on a broad interpretation of the term, considering his intention and continuity of care, despite living 900 metres away.

The Tribunal also accepted cash payments to a former nanny as adequate proof of incurred expenses.

Finally, the Tribunal found the electric assist bicycle was a reasonable and necessary rehabilitation expense to help the Applicant return to his pre-accident cardiovascular activities while minimizing impact on his injuries.

The Applicant was awarded the claimed benefits and interest.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and received income replacement benefits.

The insurer suspended benefits after the applicant refused to attend an insurer's examination, arguing the insurer failed to provide valid 'medical and any other reasons' as required by section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's stated reasons—to determine timelines for recovery and future prognosis—were valid, given the applicant's ongoing treatment and potential need for surgery.

Consequently, the applicant was precluded from receiving benefits during the period of non-compliance, and his claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant was injured when his bicycle collided with a transit bus.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, and the respondent insurer approved benefits up to the $3,500 limit for predominantly minor injuries under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant disputed the amount of his income replacement benefits and sought approval for additional treatment plans, arguing his injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence to vary the income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent his recovery within the MIG limits.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal order that excluded an audio recording of an insurer's examination from being admitted as evidence at an upcoming hearing.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached natural justice by making the decision without the examiner's reports and erred in law regarding relevance and cross-examination.

The Executive Chair denied the request, finding the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to determine relevance and that credibility could be addressed through oral testimony and cross-examination.