OLAT 2018

The appellant appealed several decisions by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying his claims for payment out of the guarantee fund.

After failing to attend a previously scheduled hearing, the matter was adjourned peremptory on the appellant.

The appellant failed to attend the rescheduled hearing without notifying the Tribunal or the parties.

As the onus was on the appellant to prove his claims, the appeal was dismissed for failure to attend and present evidence.

The appellant's commercial vehicle was impounded for 45 days after it was stopped by police while being driven by the appellant's sole owner, who was a suspended driver.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the specially equipped vehicle would result in exceptional hardship to its granite installation business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as it owned another truck that could have been repaired and had managed to continue some work with the help of friends.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the impact of the loss was actually on the suspended driver, who was the sole owner of the appellant.

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

The suspension followed a functional driving assessment indicating the appellant had a condition affecting his ability to drive safely.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed medical evidence and two functional driving assessments, both of which concluded the appellant had cognitive limitations and lacked the functional skills to drive safely.

The Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a mental or physical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

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

While the appellant had taken steps toward rehabilitation, she admitted that her anxiety and depression exacerbated her drinking.

The Registrar requested a mental health report from her doctor to assess her ability to drive safely, which she failed to provide.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant was not credible and failed to comply with the request for medical information.

The Tribunal upheld the licence suspension, concluding her alcohol addiction, exacerbated by her mental health condition, was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a reported cognitive impairment.

The suspension followed a Medical Condition Report from a hospital physician and a subsequent Cognitive Assessment Form from the appellant's neurologist, which diagnosed mild cognitive impairment and noted potential side effects from his medications.

The Registrar required the appellant to complete a functional driving evaluation, which he declined due to cost and his belief that it was unnecessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's mild cognitive impairment and medication side effects were likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and confirmed the suspension.

The appellant, a professional truck driver, appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his Class A commercial driver's licence to a Class G licence following reports of seizure-like episodes.

The episodes occurred while the appellant was gravely ill and undergoing dialysis.

Medical evidence confirmed the episodes were provoked by toxic illness and treatment, not epilepsy, and his physicians supported reinstatement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, set aside the Minister's decision, and ordered the reinstatement of his Class A licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by her boyfriend, who had a suspended licence.

She argued the vehicle was taken without her consent (stolen) and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had implicitly consented or reasonably expected her boyfriend to drive the vehicle.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no exceptional hardship, as the vehicle was unregistered and undriveable prior to the impoundment, and the appellant had reasonable alternative modes of transportation.

The appellant's snow removal vehicle was impounded for 45 days after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen and its loss would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the employee had implied consent to use the vehicle and the appellant failed to prove that operating with reduced capacity posed a threat to public safety or caused significant financial loss.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that a validly licensed employee was driving and the suspended driver was merely a passenger.

Two independent witnesses testified they saw the suspended driver operating the vehicle and called police due to suspected impairment.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence inconsistent and lacking credibility, preferring the independent witnesses' testimony.

The Tribunal concluded the suspended driver did operate the vehicle and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after her spouse, a suspended driver, was caught driving it.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant did not take proportionate steps to secure her keys, given her knowledge of her spouse's history of driving while suspended, and thus the vehicle was not stolen.

The Tribunal also found that reasonable alternative transportation was available, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The Deputy Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a real estate salesperson, alleging he falsely responded to questions on past applications and failed to disclose past refusals to register under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant did not knowingly provide false answers and reasonably assumed the Registrar was aware of his past bankruptcy and motor vehicle dealer registration issues.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar not to carry out the proposal, but attached a condition requiring the appellant's lawyer to review his next two renewal applications.

The applicant, operating as The Music Hall, applied to remove two conditions from its liquor licence: one requiring security personnel outside during operating hours, and another prohibiting patrons under 19 during the serving of alcohol.

The applicant argued a change in circumstances, specifically a shift in business structure to host diverse events including all-ages functions.

The Registrar took no position and no public objections were received.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of the conditions.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a general licence following a reported seizure.

The Minister argued the seizure could be epileptic, requiring a five-year seizure-free period under the CCMTA Standards.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the seizure was epileptic, noting it was an isolated event likely provoked by untreated pneumonia.

The Tribunal concluded the seizure did not significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and ordered the reinstatement of his commercial licence.

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

The suspension was triggered by a mandatory medical report from an emergency room physician indicating syncope and loss of consciousness.

At the hearing, the appellant presented conflicting medical evidence from her long-time family doctor and a neurologist, both of whom concluded she had not experienced syncope and supported the reinstatement of her licence.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the family doctor and the appellant's own credible testimony over the emergency room report.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not suffer from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, and set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant distillery applied for a liquor licence for its premises and an adjoining patio.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents regarding past zoning and fire safety compliance, as well as concerns about noise and neighbourhood character.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no persuasive evidence that the appellant's past conduct disentitled it to a licence or that the operation was inconsistent with the neighbourhood's character.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the licence, subject to conditions limiting the patio's capacity, restricting its hours of operation, and prohibiting amplified music.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her nephew was caught driving it while suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence credible that she had accidentally left her keys behind and her nephew took the vehicle without her express or implied consent.

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

Tarion Warranty Corporation requested an ex parte amendment to a case conference order regarding the recording of an upcoming hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the request, varying the order to reflect that the Tribunal, rather than Tarion, would arrange and pay for a court reporter to audio record the hearing.

The applicant licensee applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited live entertainment or recorded music on the premises, arguing it was only meant to apply to the outdoor area.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a change in circumstances to warrant removing the condition without a full hearing.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Remove Conditions, triggering the applicant's right to a full hearing.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a travel agent under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and submitted Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal issued a Consent Order allowing the appellant to maintain its registration subject to strict conditions, including filing audited semi-annual financial statements, maintaining minimum working capital, and complying with trust account requirements.

The appellants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their warranty claim for losses suffered when their contractor failed to substantially perform a home construction contract.

The central issue was whether the contractor met the statutory definition of a 'builder' under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal found that while the contractor constructed the foundation, framing, and roof, the appellants themselves hired, paid, and directed other trades for essential elements including the building envelope, plumbing, electrical, and HVAC systems.

Because the contractor did not direct and control all essential elements of the home's construction, it was not a 'builder' under the Act, and the appeal was dismissed.