OLAT 2016

The insurer brought a motion to prohibit the applicant from proceeding with an application for statutory accident benefits because she failed to attend an Insurer's Examination (IE) in 2011.

The insurer argued that under section 55(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, this failure barred her from applying to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the notices sent by the insurer in 2011 were defective because they failed to set out adequate medical and other reasons for the examinations, as required by the Schedule.

The insurer's motion was dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to a hearing.

The appellant daycare appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse to renew its licence under the Day Nurseries Act and the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014.

Over a three-year period, the daycare had a history of numerous non-compliances and operated under several provisional and conditional licences.

The Tribunal found that the cumulative impact of the ongoing failure to comply with regulatory requirements provided reasonable grounds to believe the daycare would not be operated in accordance with the law.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse to renew the licence.

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

The Tribunal found that the Appellant had engaged in the sale of motor vehicles while unregistered and had participated in deceptive and dishonest sales practices, including failing to disclose a vehicle's accident history and being involved in obtaining a fraudulent safety certificate.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the Appellant 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.

The appellant corporation applied for a liquor sales licence for its barbershop.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the application because one of the two principal shareholders had a lengthy criminal record involving violence and drug trafficking, and had failed to disclose three convictions on the application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the Registrar's proposal, finding that the shareholder's past conduct and failure to fully disclose his criminal record afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order refusing his registration as a gaming supplier (Seller) under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The Registrar based the refusal on the Appellant's past criminal convictions, primarily for driving offences and breaches of court orders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant had demonstrated a sufficient period of good conduct, had been honest and forthright during the application process, and had successfully rehabilitated his lifestyle.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to register the Appellant subject to a condition that he report any new charges until his driving prohibition expires in 2019.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,000 issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for allegedly permitting drunkenness on her premises.

The Registrar's inspector and police officers concluded a patron was intoxicated based on his slurred speech, unsteadiness, and loud behaviour.

However, the patron testified that his behaviour was due to physical disabilities from past accidents and his lack of a hearing aid.

The Tribunal found the patron's evidence credible and corroborated by video surveillance, concluding the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the patron was drunk.

The Order of Monetary Penalty was set aside.

The appellants applied for a liquor sales licence for the outdoor areas of a beach property.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from neighbouring residents concerned about noise, sanitation, and safety.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were speculative and that they failed to establish that issuing the licence was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application subject to conditions limiting capacity, hours of service, and requiring signage.

The Registrar of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act proposed to refuse the appellant's registration as a salesperson, alleging her past conduct lacked honesty and integrity due to a missing $7,000 cash payment and subsequent withdrawn criminal charges.

The Registrar also alleged the appellant provided false information on her applications regarding the pending charges and a consumer proposal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's handling of the missing funds was careless but did not demonstrate a lack of integrity.

The Tribunal also found the application errors were honest mistakes, not deliberate concealments.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to register the appellant subject to a condition requiring disclosure of any future charges.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son, a suspended driver, was caught driving it.

The appellant, an 88-year-old with medical issues, claimed the vehicle was needed for medical appointments.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had reasonable alternatives for transportation and failed to demonstrate an immediate, significant, and lasting threat to health or safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant rental car company appealed the impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle had been rented to a customer with strict instructions that only she was permitted to drive it.

At the time of impoundment, the vehicle was being driven by an unidentified suspended driver.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of section 50.2(3)(a) of the Act because it was taken without the owner's consent, and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence following a reported seizure.

The seizure occurred after the appellant abruptly stopped taking prescribed temazepam and consumed a significant amount of alcohol.

Medical reports diagnosed alcohol dependence and physical dependence on prescription medication.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant is addicted to alcohol and prescription drugs to an extent likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, noting she had not completed a rehabilitation program.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The Appellant, an 80-year-old retired police officer, appealed the Registrar's decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a report of cognitive impairment from his family physician.

The physician submitted a Medical Condition Report after the Appellant scored 19/30 on a MOCA test administered by an assistant.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant had recently passed the Ministry's Senior Driver screening and that the MOCA test alone, without a complete physical examination or details of the failed sections, provided insufficient grounds for a diagnosis of dementia.

The Tribunal set aside the suspension, finding no evidence that the Appellant's condition significantly interfered with his ability to drive safely.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle after her daughter's boyfriend drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant had explicitly forbidden the boyfriend from driving the vehicle.

The daughter became ill while driving the boyfriend to a medical appointment, and he took over driving without permission.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had done everything reasonably expected to prevent the suspended driver from using the vehicle, satisfying the ground that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed a driver's licence suspension imposed by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a medical report indicating alcohol dependence and abuse.

The appellant had been hospitalized for acute alcoholism and diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver.

Although the appellant claimed to have abstained from alcohol for six months, he failed to provide medical confirmation of abstinence, successful completion of a treatment program, or a relapse prevention plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was addicted to alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons.

The appellant's family physician reported that the appellant suffered from dementia and scored poorly on cognitive tests.

Two subsequent functional driving assessments concluded that the appellant made multiple dangerous driving errors and recommended against reinstatement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's cognitive deficits significantly interfered with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellants appealed an order for immediate compliance issued by the Director under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants served a witness summons on the Director, seeking her testimony and the production of extensive investigative records.

The Director brought a motion to quash the summons.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the summons was overly broad, constituted a fishing expedition, and sought evidence that was irrelevant to the Tribunal's de novo hearing.

The Tribunal also noted that the Director, acting in a regulatory and enforcement capacity, should not be compelled to testify about her decision-making process.

The appellant commercial vehicle operator appealed a Suspension and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to unpaid fines and fees.

The appellant argued that severe medical issues prevented him from managing his companies and paying the debts.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the failure to pay fees was significant, it did not constitute a safety-related risk under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to set aside the suspension, subject to strict conditions requiring the appellant to pay all outstanding fees and fines within one year and make minimum monthly payments.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her common-law partner drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was taken without her consent and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had explicitly forbidden her partner from driving the vehicle following a previous incident, and that he took it without her knowledge or consent.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act and ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The Vintner's Quality Alliance Ontario issued a compliance order requiring the appellant vineyard to remove the term 'Prince Edward County' from its website banner.

The appellant appealed the order.

The Tribunal found that the term was used to describe the geographical location of the vineyard, which produces both wine and cider, rather than to describe a specific unapproved wine.

The Tribunal held that interpreting the regulation to prohibit a vineyard from stating its factual location would lead to absurd consequences.

The compliance order was dismissed.

The Director under the Consumer Protection Act issued an order for immediate compliance against the appellants regarding their HVAC rental business practices.

The appellants appealed the order.

The Director brought a motion to extend the immediate compliance order until the hearing, while the appellants brought a counter-motion to stay the order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the Director's motion to extend the order, finding that the public interest in consumer protection outweighed the appellants' business interests.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' motion for a stay, applying the RJR MacDonald test and concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of inconvenience favoured the public interest.