Antoine A. Aouad

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by a suspended driver and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had left the keys accessible to the suspended driver, negating the claim that the vehicle was stolen.

The Tribunal also found that alternative transportation was available, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence in determining the driver's licence was not suspended and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she did not ask to see the driver's licence despite knowing he had a previous suspension.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the appellant had access to alternative transportation.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant car rental company appealed the impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a customer with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by requiring the customer, who rented on a month-to-month basis, to present a valid driver's licence each month when paying the rental bill.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's policy and practice of visually verifying the licence monthly constituted due diligence under the circumstances.

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

The appellant appealed a 90-day administrative driver's licence suspension imposed by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for failing to provide a breath sample.

The appellant argued that he was unable to provide a sample due to asthma.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence provided by the appellant was insufficient to link his asthma to an inability to provide a breath sample.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the police officers, who testified that the appellant appeared to breathe normally until asked to blow into the device, at which point his breathing seemed artificially laboured.

The appeal was dismissed and the suspension confirmed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's contractor, who was driving the vehicle, was found to have a suspended licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by visually inspecting the contractor's driver's licence a few days prior to the incident and had no reason to suspect it was suspended.

The Tribunal found the appellant's actions constituted due diligence under the specific circumstances and ordered the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to release the vehicle.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant filed the appeal 37 days after the impoundment, well past the 15-day statutory limit.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, significant prejudice to the respondent due to accruing costs, and a lack of merit in the proposed appeal.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The appellant's driver's licence had been suspended following a conviction in the United States, but he claimed he was waiting for a notification letter from the Ministry of Transportation before assuming his Ontario licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that waiting for a letter was too passive and did not constitute due diligence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the exceptional hardship argument because the appellant was both the owner and the suspended driver, which precludes relief on that ground under the regulations.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's boyfriend, a suspended driver, took the vehicle without her knowledge or permission.

The appellant argued that the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because she was pregnant and relied on the vehicle for transportation.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was taken without the appellant's consent and was therefore "stolen" within the meaning of the Act.

The Tribunal also found that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after she allowed a suspended driver to operate it.

She argued she exercised due diligence because the driver promised he had a valid licence, and claimed exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for school and work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that relying solely on the driver's word without examining the licence did not constitute due diligence.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the appellant had access to alternative transportation, including public transit and rides from her parents.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had access to alternative transportation, including public transit, rental vehicles, and other vehicles owned by her and her husband.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had access to alternative transportation, such as public transit and rental vehicles, and failed to demonstrate that any losses incurred would be significant and long-lasting.

The appeal was dismissed and the 45-day impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant's agent testified that she had care and control of the vehicle but allowed the suspended driver to drive when she felt ill, contrary to the appellant's explicit instructions that the suspended driver was not to drive.

The Tribunal accepted this evidence and found that the vehicle was driven without the owner's knowledge and permission, satisfying the ground that the vehicle was 'stolen' at the time of impoundment.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship and that it was misled by its employee regarding his suspended driver's licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not checking the employee's licence status.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because it owned other vehicles that could serve as alternatives, and there was insufficient evidence of immediate, significant, and long-lasting economic loss.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained.

The appellant had left the vehicle and keys with her boyfriend's mother, knowing her boyfriend was a suspended driver, and did not consent to him driving it.

The Tribunal found the appellant credible and concluded that the vehicle was taken without her consent, meeting the criteria for a stolen vehicle under section 50.2(3)(a).

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by her husband, whose licence was suspended for a drinking and driving conviction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative transportation available, as she had been using taxicabs to run errands.

Because an alternative existed, the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after her husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence because she had seen a newly issued driver's licence for her husband, unaware that it was issued under a different name and that his original licence remained suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible and concluded she had exercised due diligence by verifying the physical licence.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.