OLAT 2018

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence indefinitely due to alcohol dependence.

The suspension followed a Medical Condition Report submitted by an emergency room physician after the appellant sought treatment for extreme anxiety brought on by alcohol consumption.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant has an alcohol dependence, evidenced by a diagnosis of cirrhosis and recent relapses.

The Tribunal concluded that her dependence is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, as she had not enrolled in an addiction counselling program and relied solely on recent A.A. attendance.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was upheld.

The 82-year-old appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence following a stroke.

Medical reports indicated cognitive impairment, and the appellant subsequently failed a functional driving assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's cognitive impairment significantly interfered with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the Registrar's suspension, agreeing that evidence of improved cognitive function and a successful driving assessment were required before reinstatement.

The appellant appealed the suspension of his Class G driver's licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

The suspension was based on medical condition reports indicating the appellant suffered from frequent seizures due to epilepsy.

The appellant denied having recent seizures and refused to see a neurologist, despite objective medical evidence to the contrary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant lacked insight into his condition and that his epilepsy was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Registrar's decision to suspend the licence was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the Registrar's proposals to refuse the registration of their motor vehicle dealership and revoke their registrations as salespersons.

The Registrar alleged that the appellants' past conduct, including involvement in odometer rollbacks, obtaining fraudulent replacement ownerships for stolen vehicles, and breaching registration conditions, demonstrated they would not carry on business in accordance with the law, integrity, and honesty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellants' evidence lacked credibility and that their past conduct established reasonable grounds to believe they would not act with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposals to refuse and revoke the registrations.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Board of Trustees of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Compensation Fund denying his claim for $23,000.

The appellant had paid a registered car dealer for a vehicle, but the dealer failed to deliver it, transferred it to a third party, and subsequently declared bankruptcy.

The appellant paid the third party $23,000 to recover the vehicle and sought compensation from the Fund.

The Tribunal found that the purchase was a consumer transaction and that the appellant's loss flowed directly from his payment to the bankrupt dealer.

The appeal was allowed, and the Board was directed to pay the appellant $23,000 from the Fund.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a diagnosis of narcolepsy with cataplexy.

The Registrar required a 12-month symptom-free period prior to reinstatement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was successfully treated with medication and had been symptom-free for four months.

The Tribunal modified the Registrar's decision, reducing the required symptom-free period from 12 months to 6 months.

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 was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant rented a replacement vehicle during the impoundment period, which caused financial strain.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that because the appellant had an alternative vehicle available, she did not meet the threshold requirement for exceptional hardship under section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the driver, who was not the appellant, was caught driving while suspended.

The appellant filed her appeal 20 days after the 15-day statutory deadline expired, arguing she delayed because the driver initially promised to pay the impoundment fees.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and dismissed the motion, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, significant delay, prejudice to the respondent, and weak merits on the substantive due diligence and exceptional hardship grounds.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his application for a groom's licence under the Horse Racing Licence Act, 2015.

The Registrar based its refusal on the appellant's prior U.S. conviction for attempted enticement of a minor and his failure to disclose a 2007 driving conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the non-disclosure was an unintentional oversight and that the appellant's successful rehabilitation, including voluntary completion of a sex offender program and release on full parole without conditions, demonstrated he would act with honesty, integrity, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal set aside the proposal and ordered the Registrar to issue the licence, allowing parties to make submissions on potential conditions.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar's refusal was based on the appellant's extensive criminal record, which included violent offences and breaches of conditions, as well as his failure to provide requested information regarding his immigration status and community supervision.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

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

The appellant, a commercial driver, had his class 'A' licence downgraded to a class 'G' licence by the Minister of Transportation after suffering a single seizure.

The Minister applied the five-year seizure-free standard for epilepsy under the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's single provoked seizure, caused by scar tissue from a previous stroke, did not meet the definition of epilepsy.

As the appellant's condition had stabilized with medication and he had been seizure-free for over a year, the Tribunal concluded the Minister was not justified in downgrading the licence and set aside the decision.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant failed to appear at the teleconference hearing despite being sent notice and contacted by the case management officer.

As the appellant bore the onus of proving exceptional hardship and led no evidence, the tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment order.

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

The appellant's daughter, who was the suspended driver at the time of impoundment, and a friend assisted the appellant with errands during the impoundment period.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, arguing it caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant loaned it to an acquaintance who, unbeknownst to her, had a suspended driver's licence.

The Tribunal found that while the impoundment caused financial and emotional stress, the appellant was able to rent a vehicle and maintain her employment, meaning she had an alternative to the impounded vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment order confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence on medical grounds, specifically depression and substance use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the appellant's depression significantly interfered with her ability to drive safely.

However, the Tribunal upheld the suspension based on her substance use disorder, requiring a one-year period of abstinence and compliance with a Suboxone program before reinstatement could be considered.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant does suffer from seizures, the condition is controlled by medication prescribed by his treating neurologist and he has not been diagnosed with epilepsy.

The Tribunal concluded that the medical condition is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial truck after a subcontractor drove it while suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen because the subcontractor used it contrary to instructions, and that it exercised due diligence by glancing at the driver's licence.

The Tribunal found that using a vehicle contrary to instructions does not meet the definition of 'stolen' under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal also found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as merely looking at a licence without further verification, especially when the appellant's usual practice was to check with its insurance company, was insufficient.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to alcohol dependence.

The Ministry of Transportation received a medical report indicating the appellant suffered from alcohol dependence.

The appellant had completed a substance abuse treatment program and maintained abstinence for five months.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had not yet met the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers, which recommends a six-month period of abstinence and a favourable recommendation from a treating physician.

The Tribunal confirmed the licence suspension, finding the six-month waiting period reasonable given the risks associated with alcohol dependence and driving.

The appellant appealed the downgrade of his commercial driver's licence, which was suspended and downgraded due to epilepsy.

The appellant had been seizure-free for two years following a seizure caused by a combination of stress factors and medication non-compliance.

The Tribunal considered the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, which recommend a five-year seizure-free period for commercial drivers.

The Tribunal found that the increased safety risks associated with commercial vehicles and the appellant's history of non-compliance justified the lengthier seizure-free period.

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

The appellant condominium corporation appealed Tarion's decision regarding a first-year common element warranty claim for defective composite siding (item 4.2.2.1).

The appellant sought over $1.5 million for a complete replacement of the cladding system, arguing the defects caused widespread consequential damage.

Tarion argued the warranty only covered specific sealant repairs costing $84,830.16.

The Tribunal found that only the specific defect identified in the performance audit was covered by the first-year warranty.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of Tarion's engineer and held that the statutory warranty does not cover secondary or consequential damages.

Tarion was ordered to pay $84,830.16.