Patrick Moore

The Applicants appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling their Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) certificates and seizing their plates.

The Registrar had previously suspended the CVORs, but evidence showed the Applicants continued to operate commercial vehicles in Ontario and other provinces during the suspension period.

The Applicants also failed to provide required documents to Ministry auditors and had a poor safety record.

The Tribunal found the Applicants' misconduct egregious and dismissed the appeal, confirming the cancellation of the CVOR certificates and plates.

The Applicant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operators Registration (CVOR) certificate.

The Registrar argued that the Applicant was controlled by an individual whose previous trucking companies had their CVOR certificates cancelled due to catastrophic safety records.

The Tribunal found that the individual in question did control or manage the Applicant, making him a related person under the Highway Traffic Act.

Considering the combined safety record, the Tribunal concluded there was reason to believe the Applicant would not operate safely and ordered the cancellation of the CVOR certificate.

The respondents were acquitted of operating a commercial motor vehicle in a dangerous or unsafe condition under s. 84(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown appealed, arguing that a regulation defining 'critical defects' for the purpose of vehicle impoundment under s. 82.1 should also apply to the offence provision in s. 84(1.1).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the regulation explicitly applies only to s. 82.1 and that the legislature intended a higher threshold of danger for a conviction under s. 84(1.1) than for an impoundment under s. 82.1.

The Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, which had revoked the respondent's motor vehicle inspection station licence but declined to revoke his mechanic's registration.

The Divisional Court found that the tribunal's conclusion that the respondent had not violated the Act or regulations was contrary to unchallenged evidence of his twelve convictions under the Act.

The court set aside the tribunal's direction forbidding the revocation of the respondent's registration.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Licence Suspension Appeal Board decision that directed the refusal of their motor vehicle inspection licences.

They also brought a motion to adduce new evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for new evidence, finding it irrelevant and lacking an explanation for why it was not presented earlier.

The court also dismissed the application for judicial review, noting that the applicants had failed to pursue their statutory right of appeal under the Highway Traffic Act and had not proceeded in a timely manner.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding the constitution of a pension plan's advisory committee.

A pre-hearing motion was held to determine whether separate notice of the jurisdictional hearing needed to be provided to former members of the plan.

The Tribunal found that the union's acknowledgement of its fiduciary duty to represent all members, including former members, was sufficient.

The Tribunal declined to order additional notice to former members.