Tim Snell

The applicant builder sought an extension of time to appeal a Notice of Proposal to refuse its registration.

The proposal was issued because the applicant failed to provide required financial security.

The applicant missed the 15-day appeal deadline by 36 days, attributing the delay to illness and a change of address.

The Tribunal found that the applicant maintained a firm intention to appeal, the delay was relatively brief, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The motion to extend the time to appeal was granted, but the applicant remains un-licensed pending the hearing on the merits.

The applicant builder brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Notice of Proposal to refuse to renew its registration.

The applicant missed the 15-day deadline and argued the delay was due to confusion, changing requirements, and the principal's memory loss from vehicular accidents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant made a conscious decision to wait until regulatory authority transferred from Tarion to the HCRA before appealing, demonstrating a lack of firm intention to appeal within the required timeframe.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a notice of proposal to revoke its builder registration under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The notice was served on September 28, 2020, but the appellant did not request a hearing until January 28, 2021, three and a half months after the 15-day deadline.

The Tribunal applied the multi-pronged test for extending time limits and found that the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, which was attributed to inadvertence.

Furthermore, the appellant did not demonstrate a substantive and reasonably arguable case on the merits.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a notice from the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) requiring it to register as a travel agent or face potential charges under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application at the outset of the hearing, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

The court held that TICO's notice was not an exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, as TICO only has the power to seek an injunction or initiate a prosecution, not to unilaterally decide the applicant's legal rights.

A case management conference was held to provide procedural directions for an upcoming application for judicial review.

The court ordered that the hearing proceed via video conference using ZOOM technology.

Directions were provided regarding the use of a password-protected electronic dropbox for document filing, formatting of electronic materials, and the submission of factums, compendiums, and costs outlines.

The appellant travel agency appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its registration under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged a deteriorating pattern of non-compliance, including failures to meet financial reporting deadlines, maintain working capital, and comply with trust accounting regulations.

Despite multiple inspections and warnings, the appellant failed to rectify its trust accounting deficiencies and provide required reconciliations.

The Tribunal found that the appellant repeatedly contravened the Act, the Regulation, and its conditions of licensing.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the appellant's licence.

The applicants, a real estate broker and her brokerage, appealed a proposal by the Registrar to suspend their registrations.

The proposal was based on the broker's failure to comply with a prior Discipline Committee order requiring her to pay a $7,000 fine and complete educational courses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the broker's failure to comply with the order demonstrated that she would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the suspension until the broker fully complied with the Discipline Committee order.

The appellant, a standardbred driver, appealed rulings suspending him for 100 days and downgrading his license for careless driving and interference.

The Ontario Racing Commission Panel found that the appellant created dangerous situations and lacked driving skills.

The Panel varied the penalty, staying the remaining 20 days of the suspension subject to conditions, placing his license on probation for 24 months, and quashing the license downgrade.

The appellant, a standardbred licensee, appealed a suspension under Rule 6.38 of the Rules of Standardbred Racing.

Following an adjournment to allow the appellant to retain counsel, the Ontario Racing Commission heard the appeal based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Commission reinstated the appellant's driver's licence subject to a 180-day suspension and a one-year probation period.

During probation, the appellant must submit to random drug testing, with any positive or improper sample resulting in an immediate full suspension.

The appellants appealed Judges' Rulings finding them in violation of various Rules of Standardbred Racing related to hidden trainers and misleading investigators.

The Ontario Racing Commission granted the appeals regarding the hidden trainer allegations, finding that the named trainer did perform sufficient duties to be considered the trainer of record.

However, the Commission upheld the findings that the appellants misled investigators and submitted false licence applications.

Fines were imposed and licences suspended until payment.

Windsor Raceway applied for 124 live race dates for the 2005 calendar year, following two previously deficient applications.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association opposed the reduction, arguing for a return to the 153 dates approved in 2003 and 2004.

The Commission criticized both parties for focusing on self-interest rather than the public interest.

The Commission ultimately approved a schedule resulting in 131 live dates and 1,965 live racing opportunities, emphasizing the need to resume racing and consider the broader public interest.

The licensee, a standardbred driver, trainer, and owner, tested positive for THC Carboxylic Acid.

The Director of Racing indefinitely suspended his licences pending a hearing.

Following a hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission, the panel ordered his licences fully suspended for three months and his driver's licence suspended for one year, including prohibitions on driving, warming up, and parading horses.

The Director of Racing indefinitely suspended the respondent's standardbred driver licence after he tested positive for THC Carboxylic Acid.

Following a hearing, the Ontario Racing Commission ordered an eight-month suspension (with two months stayed), required the respondent to enroll in an ongoing treatment program, and placed his licence on probation for one year.

The respondent, a standardbred licensee, tested positive for a cocaine metabolite.

Following a hearing, the Ontario Racing Commission suspended his trainer and ferrier licences for three months, and his driver and starter licences for one year (with three months stayed).

The Commission also ordered him to complete a treatment program and placed his licences on probation for one year.

The appellants, a standardbred owner/trainer and an authorized agent/owner/trainer, appealed rulings imposing fines and suspensions following a positive test for a prohibited substance in their horse.

The trainer of record's appeal was dismissed on consent.

The co-owner's appeal was allowed in part; the Commission found he was not directly responsible for the positive test but was responsible for partial care of the horse through their partnership.

His penalty was reduced from a $2,000 fine and 15-day suspension to a $1,000 fine.

Picov Downs Inc. applied for approval of 20 days of live quarter horse racing and intertrack dates for the 2005 season.

The Ontario Racing Commission approved the application, subject to conditions requiring the applicant to provide detailed plans and timelines for the construction of new backstretch and racing facilities, and ensuring that the existing facilities are appropriate for regulatory staff and horses.

The appellant, a licensed standardbred owner, appealed two rulings by racetrack judges suspending his licence and imposing a fine for using improper language and engaging in misconduct prejudicial to the best interests of racing during two separate altercations.

The Ontario Racing Commission upheld the findings of liability, noting the appellant's aggressive and threatening behaviour towards other licensees.

However, the Commission allowed the appeal in part regarding penalty, reducing the total suspension to 20 racing days and the fine to $3,000, while imposing a one-year probationary period.

The applicant requested a hearing into the Director's Notice of Proposed Order to refuse his application to renew his licence as a Clocker.

During the hearing, the applicant withdrew his request.

The Director subsequently ordered that the application be refused.

The Commission also heard evidence that the applicant's summonsed witnesses were informed they would not be paid attendance money as required by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Commission directed that if the applicant ever reapplies for a licence after the minimum two-year prohibition period, his licence will remain indefinitely suspended until he pays the witness attendance money owed in full.

Windsor Raceway applied to the Ontario Racing Commission for 124 race dates for the 2005 calendar year.

The Commission noted the public interest required resuming live racing at Windsor as soon as possible following a stoppage.

The Commission approved the application subject to two conditions: Windsor Raceway must add seven additional race dates to total 131 days, and there must be an average of fifteen live races per race date.

If the conditions were not accepted by the specified deadline, the application would be rejected.

The Ontario Racing Commission held a hearing regarding Winrac Development Inc.'s failure to complete a new paddock at Woodstock Raceway by the amended deadline of August 3, 2004.

Winrac argued that the delay was caused by its landlord, the Woodstock Agricultural Society, and requested a suspended penalty.

The Commission rejected this argument, finding that Winrac failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining the necessary approvals from its landlord.

The Commission concluded that Winrac failed to comply with a requirement of the Commission and imposed a fine of $20,000.