OLAT 2018

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a psychiatric condition.

The suspension followed reports of the appellant's hospitalization for suicidal ideation involving a motor vehicle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers and found that the appellant had not demonstrated a sufficient period of stability or obtained a treating physician's approval to return to driving.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's mental condition was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant, a commercial trucking company, appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to its poor safety record.

The appellant argued that it had implemented a safety action plan and its violation rate was improving.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's safety record was abysmal, placing it among the worst operators in Ontario, and that its reported mileage was inflated, masking its true violation rate.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not operate safely and confirmed the Cancellation and Seizure Order.

The appellants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their major structural defect claim regarding a sewer line blockage because it was submitted after the 7-year claim period.

The appellants argued that the claim period should be extended due to extraordinary circumstances, alleging that Tarion misled them into believing the issue was not a major structural defect and advising them to work with the builder instead.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that Tarion did not mislead the appellants, as call centre staff are trained not to express opinions on warrantability, and the appellants likely decided themselves not to submit a claim after learning that damage to drains is excluded from the definition.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claim.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's daughter's friend drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because his wife, who has medical issues, and his son, who has Down syndrome, rely on the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative transportation options, as his other daughters were assisting with driving and he owned a second vehicle for commuting.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended after an emergency room doctor submitted a medical condition report noting alcohol dependence.

The appellant appealed the suspension, arguing he had completed an alcohol treatment program and maintained abstinence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had taken positive steps to combat his alcohol dependence, including completing a rehabilitation program and maintaining four months of abstinence.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent failed to prove the appellant suffered from alcohol dependence to a degree likely to affect his ability to drive safely, and set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report citing alcohol dependence and seizures following an emergency department visit for a prescription drug overdose.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that the appellant was addicted to alcohol or suffered from a seizure disorder.

The Tribunal noted the overdose was an isolated incident triggered by acute stress, and the appellant's long-time physician supported the reinstatement of his licence.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

The appellants appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles that terminated their right to operate trucks on Ontario highways due to a poor safety record.

The Tribunal confirmed the Order with respect to Great Lakes Offshore Services Inc., finding reasonable grounds to believe it would not operate commercial motor vehicles safely despite recent remedial efforts.

However, the Tribunal set aside the Order with respect to the Registration Identification Numbers (RIN) of Darrin Smith and Hoover's Marina Limited, finding no statutory authority in the Highway Traffic Act to cancel a RIN.

The Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards proposed to refuse to issue a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS) licence and mechanic registration to the appellant due to a history of violations and convictions under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant appealed the proposal, arguing that the violations occurred during a period of significant personal disruption involving a difficult custody battle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, viewed in the context of his family circumstances, did not provide reasonable grounds to believe he would fail to operate the station in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The appeal was allowed and the Director was ordered to reinstate the licence and registration.

The appellant, a registered real estate salesperson, appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke his registration after he was caught on video stealing money and batteries from a home he was viewing.

The Tribunal previously allowed him to retain his registration with conditions, but the Divisional Court overturned that decision and ordered a new hearing.

At the new hearing, evidence revealed the appellant had committed multiple other thefts in his professional capacity and personal life, which he had minimized or concealed from his wife, therapist, and character witness.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's expert psychiatric evidence that he was a low risk to reoffend, finding the appellant lacked credibility and had not been truthful.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar had reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional financial hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as renting a car, carpooling, or taking a taxi.

Because an alternative was available, the Tribunal was prohibited by regulation from considering financial or economic loss.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days for permitting drunkenness on its premises.

Following a hearing where the Tribunal found the appellant had permitted drunkenness, the parties made a joint submission agreeing to a 14-day suspension.

The Tribunal accepted the joint submission, finding the 14-day suspension appropriate to protect the public, and ordered the suspension on consent.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence (class A, C) to G following a single seizure in April 2016.

The Registrar required a five-year seizure-free period, treating the condition as epilepsy under the CCMTA Standards.

The Tribunal found that the seizure was provoked by a subdural hematoma resulting from a motor vehicle accident, not epilepsy.

Applying the correct CCMTA standard for a provoked seizure, the Tribunal concluded the appellant met the requirements for reinstatement, as the provoking factor had stabilized and the risk of another seizure was low.

The downgrade was set aside.

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

The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's past financial conduct, including a bankruptcy and the disappearance of a financed vehicle, as well as false statements made on his application.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty, and that he knowingly made false statements on his application.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration, finding that conditions would not sufficiently address the concerns.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles following a medical report of a seizure, which a neurologist later concluded was likely provoked by alcohol and drug use.

The appellant appealed the suspension to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was not addicted to alcohol or drugs, had ceased using cocaine, and had significantly reduced his alcohol consumption.

The Tribunal concluded that the Registrar failed to establish that the appellant's current alcohol use was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and set aside the licence suspension.

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

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's past criminal convictions, including criminal harassment and mischief, and his failure to disclose these convictions on past renewal applications.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's criminal record, combined with his lack of honesty and integrity regarding his convictions and reliance on an expired pardon, provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law, with integrity, or with honesty.

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

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his application for a real estate sales licence.

His previous licence was revoked in 2014 due to extensive debts, unpaid fines, and disciplinary issues.

While the Tribunal found the appellant was eligible to reapply because the required time had passed and he presented new evidence, it ultimately concluded he was unfit for registration.

The Tribunal held that the appellant's worsening financial position demonstrated he could not be expected to be financially responsible, and his past conduct provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act in accordance with the law, integrity, or honesty.

The Registrar's proposal to refuse registration was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Bailiffs' proposal to refuse his application for registration as an assistant bailiff.

The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's lengthy criminal record, which included convictions for theft, assault, and dishonesty, as well as a false statement on his application regarding his criminal history.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's criminal record and attempt to mislead the Registrar provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act 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's vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The appellant filed an appeal of the impoundment three days after the 15-day appeal period expired and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the four-part test for extending time and found that the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was minimal, prejudice to the respondent was limited to three days of storage costs, and the appeal had a reasonable chance of success based on a due diligence defence.

The motion was granted and the time to appeal was extended.

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

Her vehicle was impounded after her roommate, a disqualified driver, drove it without permission.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had access to alternative transportation, including public transit, taxis, and ride-sharing services, and her employer allowed her to work from home.

As alternatives existed, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant failed to appear at the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, providing the appellant an opportunity to make written submissions.

The appellant did not respond or contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the appeal was abandoned and ordered it dismissed.