OLAT 2019

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

The corporate appellant was registered only as a wholesale dealer, but the individual appellant admitted to selling approximately 70 vehicles to retail customers, violating the conditions of registration.

Despite multiple warnings from inspectors and the Registrar, the appellants continued to sell retail, citing financial difficulties.

The Tribunal found reasonable grounds to believe the appellants would not carry on business in accordance with the law, honesty, and integrity, and that they could not be expected to be financially responsible.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registrations.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after she lent it to her boyfriend whose licence was suspended.

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship by impeding her ability to commute to work and attend prenatal medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternative methods of transportation and therefore did not meet the regulatory criteria for exceptional hardship.

The applicant brought a motion to adjourn the final argument of her appeal to allow time to seek correction of her medical records under section 55 of the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, arguing the evidence was inadmissible.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding no prejudice to the respondent or risk to the public, and directed that the proposed evidence be treated similarly to a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffered a single seizure as a result of alcohol withdrawal, but the condition was stable, controlled by medication, and the appellant had been alcohol-free for 6-12 months.

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

The appellant appealed a 14-day suspension of its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to a poor safety record and recent significant safety events, including two wheel separations and a serious multi-vehicle accident.

The appellant argued its violation rate was below the threshold for suspension and that certain incidents should not be recorded.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's safety record provided reasonable grounds to believe it would not operate safely, rejecting the appellant's interpretation that towed 'devices' were exempt from the CVOR record.

The Tribunal confirmed the 14-day suspension as an appropriate sanction.

The appellant, a licensed establishment, applied to expand its indoor liquor licensed area.

Two objectors, a commercial condominium corporation and a neighbouring unit owner, opposed the application, citing non-compliance with condominium by-laws and concerns about noise, litter, and disorderly crowds.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that granting the licence was not in the public interest.

However, acknowledging evidence of occasional late-night disorderly conduct outside the premises, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application subject to conditions, including a reduced capacity limit, security requirements, and noise signage.

The appellant sold his vehicle to a purchaser but allowed her to drive it away with his licence plates still attached.

The purchaser, whose driver's licence was suspended, failed to return the plates or transfer ownership, and the vehicle was subsequently impounded by police.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment, arguing the vehicle was stolen because his plates were stolen, and claiming exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant remained the registered owner, the vehicle was not stolen as it was taken with consent, and there was no exceptional hardship because the appellant had another vehicle for his own transportation needs.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend and downgrade his commercial driver's licence following an episode of syncope while driving.

The appellant argued that he had undergone extensive medical testing with negative results and had been cleared to drive by his treating physicians after a 12-week waiting period.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a split decision.

The panel chair found that the appellant suffered an atypical vasovagal syncope without warning, and applied the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, which recommend a 12-month asymptomatic waiting period for commercial drivers.

The chair concluded the condition was likely to significantly interfere with safe commercial driving and confirmed the downgrade.

The dissenting member would have reinstated the licence based on the treating physicians' clearance.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the basis of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's daughter permitted her boyfriend, who was restricted to driving vehicles with an ignition interlock device, to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not meet the requirement of showing there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she owned another vehicle and her daughter also had access to an alternative vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the medical suspension of his driver's licence, which was suspended following a report of alcohol dependence.

During the hearing, the respondent confirmed that the medical suspension had been cancelled.

The appellant confirmed he no longer wished to proceed, and the matter was settled.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen by her partner and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the partner took the keys from her purse without permission but was considered a co-owner by the appellant.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant failed to demonstrate she had explored all reasonable transportation alternatives as required by the strict test in the regulation.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Tarion Warranty Corporation to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The appellant failed to provide disclosure, failed to attend a scheduled case conference, and lost contact with its counsel.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, to which the appellant did not respond.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had abandoned its appeal and dismissed the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to Rule 3 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 30 days after inspectors found 171 patrons in an area licensed for 94.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did exceed the maximum capacity, violating section 43 of the Regulation.

However, considering mitigating factors such as the lack of serious consequences and the appellant's remedial steps, the Tribunal determined that a 30-day suspension was too harsh.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to suspend the licence for 15 days instead, satisfying the principles of general and specific deterrence.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after her son lent it to a friend who had a suspended licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the appellant did not demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit and that the appeal lacked merit, as the appellant had alternative transportation and could not establish exceptional hardship.

The appellant, a children's residence operator, appealed a proposal to revoke its licence and brought a motion for confidentiality orders and a timeline order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the openness principle from Toronto Star v. AG Ontario, balancing it against the privacy interests of children.

The Tribunal granted orders protecting the identities of children and temporarily sealing Children's Aid Society records, but refused to anonymize the appellant's name, finding no significant privacy interest outweighed the openness principle for a regulated corporate entity.

The request for a 90-day timeline order was dismissed as a consent timetable was already in place.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to refuse to issue a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS) licence and to refuse to register the individual appellant as an MVI mechanic.

The Tribunal found that while the appellants had rectified equipment deficiencies, the individual appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be operated with honesty and integrity.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the individual appellant lacked current competence regarding safety standards.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse the licence and registration.

The appellant appealed the downgrade of his commercial driver's licence to a Class-G licence following a single seizure.

The Registrar argued the appellant suffered from epilepsy and required a five-year seizure-free period under the CCMTA Guidelines.

The Tribunal found the seizure was provoked by a head injury from a fall, not epilepsy.

Applying the CCMTA Guidelines for provoked seizures, the Tribunal found the appellant had been stable for over six months and his neurologist supported his return to commercial driving.

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

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her partner was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had an alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she was able to pay for alternate transportation to work and for other daily activities.

Because an alternative was available, the strict test for exceptional hardship under the Highway Traffic Act and its regulations was not met.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after she lent it to her boyfriend, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by asking to see his licence before allowing him to drive and was unaware of his suspension.

The Tribunal found the appellant to be a credible witness and concluded she had exercised due diligence in the circumstances.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their warranty claim regarding the asymmetrical construction of their new home's cathedral ceiling.

The appellants argued the 4-inch discrepancy in the ceiling's starting points was an aesthetic defect.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that aesthetics alone do not constitute a breach of the warranty that a home is constructed in a workmanlike manner, absent evidence that the construction fell below industry standards.

The Tribunal also noted the appellants provided no evidence of damages.