OLAT 2019

The applicant, a licensed establishment, applied to remove a condition on its liquor licence that prohibited two individuals with prior bookmaking convictions from entering the premises.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances, noting the individuals had no further criminal involvement, were engaged in community fundraising with the applicant, and the Registrar did not oppose the removal.

The application was granted and the condition was removed, while other conditions prohibiting their business involvement remained.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his commercial vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after an employee, whose licence was suspended, took the vehicle without permission and was stopped by police.

The Tribunal found that the employee did not have tacit consent to use the vehicle, as the appellant had strict policies against unlicensed driving and immediately fired the employee.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment and ordered its release.

The appellant applied to remove conditions on its liquor licence that restricted live/amplified music and the hours of sale and service of alcohol on its rooftop patio.

The Registrar issued a Proposal to refuse the removal, citing insufficient evidence of a change in circumstances.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had established a change in circumstances through a change in ownership and business model, physical alterations to reduce noise, a change in the competitive environment, and increased community support.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out its proposal, effectively removing the conditions.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship.

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she was able to rely on rides from others for work, groceries, and medical appointments.

Furthermore, there was no threat to health or safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended under section 57 of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to complete a remedial measures program following three previous suspensions related to drinking and driving.

The appellant appealed the suspension to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding that it lacked jurisdiction because section 50(1) of the Act does not grant the Tribunal authority to hear appeals of suspensions imposed under section 57.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of the Licence Appeal Tribunal's decision confirming the suspension of his driver's licence for medical reasons.

He sought to submit additional medical documentation, including an EEG test and reports from his chiropractor and family doctor.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, finding that the proposed evidence could reasonably have been obtained before the original hearing and that the reconsideration process is not intended to allow parties to gather additional evidence after a decision is made.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal the impoundment of his commercial motor vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant, whose licence was subject to an ignition interlock condition, was found operating it without a breath testing kit.

The Tribunal applied the factors for extending time and found that while the appellant did not demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was short, there was no prejudice to the respondent, and the appeal had some merit based on potential exceptional hardship.

The motion to extend time was granted.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty imposing two $1,500 penalties for alleged violations of the Liquor Licence Act regulations.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant served liquor outside prescribed hours and failed to clear signs of service within 45 minutes of the end of the service period.

The Tribunal found the inspector's evidence credible and concluded that the appellant had served a drink after 2:00 a.m.

The appellant admitted to failing to clear signs of service.

The Tribunal found both violations proven and ordered the parties to proceed with submissions on the appellant's constitutional question regarding settlement negotiations.

The appellant applied to be registered as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the registration due to the appellant's lengthy drug-related criminal record, which included convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possessing proceeds of crime.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal but conceded that his application could not succeed if his criminal convictions were upheld on appeal.

Following the Ontario Court of Appeal's dismissal of his criminal appeal, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to deny the registration.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a class 'G' licence due to a cardiovascular condition.

The Minister relied on a medical report indicating the appellant had atrial fibrillation and cardiomyopathy, and mistakenly concluded he had received inotropic support.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant has a cardiovascular condition, he had never received inotropes and met the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for commercial drivers.

The Tribunal concluded the condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and set aside the Minister's decision.

The appellant, a licensed establishment, appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,500 issued by the Registrar for allegedly permitting drunkenness on its premises.

While the Tribunal found that a patron was indeed intoxicated, it concluded that the Registrar failed to prove the appellant 'permitted' the drunkenness.

The evidence showed the staff did not know, and ought not to have known, of the patron's intoxication in the busy establishment, and they removed the patron immediately upon being notified by the inspector.

The appeal was granted and the monetary penalty was set aside.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her son-in-law was caught driving it while suspended.

The appellant, a 73-year-old pensioner with high blood pressure, argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship as she relied on the vehicle for groceries and medical appointments.

The Tribunal found there was no alternative transportation available and that forcing the appellant to walk long distances in the cold posed a threat to her health and safety.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant, a school bus driver, appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade her commercial licence to a class 'G' licence due to a medical condition.

At the hearing, the appellant confirmed she had filed a Notice of Withdrawal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal acknowledged the withdrawal, issued no order, and closed the file.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after her son was caught driving it without an ignition interlock device, contrary to a condition on his licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant took no active steps to check her son's licence condition before lending the vehicle, and that she had access to alternative transportation, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle dealer under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached an agreement and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal waived the hearing requirement and ordered that the appellant's registration be issued subject to extensive conditions regarding compliance, business location, books and records, disclosure, financial responsibility, and maintaining a letter of credit.

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its vehicle after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by asking the employee if he had a valid licence during his job interview.

The Tribunal found this insufficient, holding that due diligence requires an employer to inspect the driver's licence and confirm its status with the Ministry of Transportation or through a driver record search before allowing an employee to drive company vehicles.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought to remove a condition on its liquor licence that restricted the hours of sale and service of alcohol on its patio.

The condition had been imposed due to an objection from the former ward Councillor.

The applicant demonstrated a change in circumstances, as the new Councillor supported extending the hours and confirmed there were no complaints against the establishment.

The respondent consented to the application, and the Tribunal ordered the condition removed pursuant to section 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The applicant, owner of a licensed establishment, applied to remove several conditions attached to its liquor licence.

The establishment had shifted its operating focus from a nightclub to a concert hall and event venue.

Following discussions, the respondent agreed that the conditions were either outside the mandate of the AGCO, unenforceable, or mandated by statute.

The police also did not oppose the removal of the condition requiring off-duty officers.

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

The appellant's motion for an extension of time to appeal a vehicle impoundment was dismissed after he failed to attend a case conference.

The Tribunal initiated a reconsideration on its own motion upon discovering that the Notice of Case Conference contained an incorrect date.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was denied an opportunity to be heard, violating the rules of procedural fairness, and ordered a rehearing of the motion.

The applicant applied to remove conditions on its liquor licence restricting the hours of sale and service of alcohol.

The conditions were originally imposed due to objections from a neighbouring resident.

The applicant demonstrated a change in circumstances, specifically that the sole objector no longer resided next to the establishment.

The Registrar did not oppose the application given the lack of negative compliance history.

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