OLAT 2019

The appellant appealed a vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing and did not respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appeal to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse and attach conditions to their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a resolution and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal disposed of the proceeding without a hearing, ordering that Hatu's application be withdrawn, Aida Auto Sale Ltd. be registered as a dealer, and Kadoura be registered as a salesperson with conditions prohibiting Hatu from being an interested person in the business.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship for his daughter's employment and financial strain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant and his daughter had alternative modes of transportation available, specifically the use of his wife's vehicle and rides from friends.

Because alternatives existed, the Tribunal was precluded by regulation from considering financial loss or inconvenience.

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

The Registrar relied on medical reports from the appellant's geriatrician and family physician, as well as a failed functional driving assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from cognitive impairment that significantly interferes with her ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder, evidenced by his continued use of opioids, stimulants, and hallucinogens, and his lack of insight into his condition.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's substance use disorder is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

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

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, along with immediate suspension orders.

At the commencement of the hearing, the appellants consented to the continuation of their immediate suspensions until the conclusion of the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the continuation of the suspensions, joined the related appeal files, and adjourned the matters to an in-person case conference.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her son drove it while his license was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the vehicle was not stolen as the appellant left the keys accessible despite knowing her son's history of taking her vehicles.

The Tribunal also found that the exceptional hardship ground was unavailable due to previous impoundments of the appellant's vehicles for the same reason, and regardless, she had access to another vehicle.

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

The suspension followed a roadside investigation and subsequent medical reports citing alcohol dependence and potential seizures.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the medical evidence and found that the appellant did not suffer from a seizure disorder, sleep disorder, or other substance use disorder, but did suffer from mild-moderate alcohol use disorder.

Given the appellant's history of driving after consuming alcohol and lack of insight, the Tribunal concluded this condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship as she needed it for work and medical appointments.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative transportation options, including borrowing her father's vehicle and using public transit.

Because alternatives were available, the Tribunal could not consider financial loss and concluded that exceptional hardship was not established.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

She argued that she exercised due diligence to prevent him from driving and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for her work as a personal support worker.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that she knew her son's licence was suspended and that he had previously taken the vehicle without permission.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the appellant had access to an alternative vehicle borrowed from a family member.

The applicant applied to remove seven conditions from its liquor licence, arguing a change in circumstances.

The Registrar conceded that most conditions were unenforceable or covered by other regulations.

A new Boulevard Cafe agreement with the City of Toronto addressed the remaining condition regarding hours of service.

On consent, the Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the removal of all conditions.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke her registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant's past conduct, including criminal convictions for fraud related to a government grant and failures to disclose secondary employment as a paralegal and mortgage broker, afforded reasonable grounds for belief that she would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's repeated instances of fraud, misrepresentation, and non-disclosure over several years justified revocation.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration, finding that the imposition of conditions was not appropriate.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following an alcohol withdrawal-related seizure.

The Registrar argued the suspension should remain until the appellant was seizure-free and abstinent for one year.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had abstained from alcohol for nearly 11 months, had not suffered subsequent seizures, and did not meet the definition of alcohol abuse or dependence.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove the appellant was addicted to alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and ordered the suspension set aside.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after being operated by a driver with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 11 days late and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Tribunal applied the factors for extending time and found that while the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was short, and there was no prejudice to the respondent, the appeal lacked merit.

The appellant could not establish exceptional hardship because he owned a second vehicle and had access to a rental car, meaning there was an alternative to the impounded vehicle.

The motion to extend time was denied.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder.

The Registrar required a six-month period of confirmed abstinence before reinstatement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had successfully completed a rehabilitation program, maintained abstinence for four and a half months, and provided favourable recommendations from medical professionals.

The Tribunal concluded there were no objective medical grounds to delay reinstatement and ordered the appellant's driver's licence to be reinstated.

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a mental health disorder, specifically paranoid delusions, and lacks insight into her condition.

Relying on medical evidence and the CCMTA Standards, the Tribunal concluded that the disorder is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The suspension was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Registrar alleged that the appellants failed to disclose material information about the accident histories of vehicles to consumers, as evidenced by consumer complaints and OMVIC inspections.

The Tribunal found that the appellants engaged in a pattern of material non-disclosure and attempted to mislead OMVIC during its investigation.

The Tribunal concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, and directed the Registrar to carry out the Proposal and revoke their registrations.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant loaned it to a friend, who then had a co-worker drive it; the co-worker was stopped by police and found to be driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship as a single mother of three children.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had been able to make alternate transportation arrangements using public transit and assistance from family and friends.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his commercial truck, which was impounded after being driven by an employee with a suspended licence.

At the teleconference hearing, upon learning that a decision would not be issued immediately, the appellant became upset, withdrew his appeal, and hung up.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and closed the file.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for being operated by a suspended driver.

The appellant filed a motion to extend the time to appeal the impoundment, arguing that he attempted to fax the Notice of Appeal within the 15-day deadline but the Tribunal's fax number was inoperative.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was not his fault, and the prejudice to the appellant outweighed any prejudice to the respondent.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.