Antoine Aouad

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence because she did not know her son's licence was suspended, and claimed exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to make any inquiries about her son's licence status despite his history of suspensions, thus failing the due diligence test.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the appellant had alternative transportation available through her daughter and a friend.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 90-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The applicant argued the vehicle was stolen, he exercised due diligence, and the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the vehicle was taken with implied consent, the applicant made no effort to verify the driver's licence status, and the hardship ground was precluded due to previous impoundments.

The 90-day impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship for his family.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant was caught driving while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant and his family had alternate modes of transportation available, including a vehicle lent by the applicant's brother, public transportation, and taxis.

As an alternative to the impounded vehicle existed, the Tribunal concluded that the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met and confirmed the impoundment.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to exercise due diligence in checking her son's licence status.

Furthermore, the exceptional hardship claim failed because the applicant had alternative transportation available, as her employer provided a taxi and her daughter could drive her.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's ex-boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not exercise due diligence because she gave him the keys without checking his licence status.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the applicant owned a second vehicle that she could drive, meaning an alternative mode of transportation was available.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 90-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's father was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The applicant argued he did not receive proper documentation and that his father took the car without permission.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had acquiesced to his father's use of the vehicle and did not consider it stolen.

As there was a previous impoundment within two years, exceptional hardship could not be considered.

The appeal was dismissed and the 90-day impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's former girlfriend, who lived with the applicant, was caught driving it while her licence was suspended.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the vehicle was not stolen as the applicant acquiesced to its use, and that the applicant failed to prove there was no alternative transportation available to establish exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's sub-contractor was caught driving it while suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant failed to exercise due diligence by not verifying the driver's licence status before handing over the vehicle.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim, noting the availability of alternative transportation and the lack of documented proof of significant, long-lasting business losses.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was taken without her consent by her suspended common-law spouse and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the vehicle was not stolen, as the applicant left the keys accessible despite knowing of the suspension.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim, noting that the applicant had access to alternative transportation through family members.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's daughter's boyfriend, a suspended driver, took the keys and drove the vehicle.

The applicant argued the vehicle was stolen, that she exercised due diligence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the daughter did not testify to establish the vehicle was stolen, due diligence was not met, and the applicant had alternate transportation, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's daughter allowed a suspended driver to operate it.

The applicant argued the vehicle was stolen, that due diligence was exercised, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the vehicle was not stolen, the owner failed to exercise due diligence by not verifying the driver's licence, and exceptional hardship was not established because the family had access to an alternative vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her neighbour was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She argued the vehicle was stolen, she exercised due diligence, and the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that she had given implicit permission to drive, failed to verify the driver's licence details, and had access to public transportation, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant allowed a suspended driver to operate it.

The Tribunal found that merely asking the driver if he was 'good to drive' did not constitute due diligence.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the applicant had rented a vehicle, demonstrating that alternate transportation was available.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by her daughter's boyfriend, whose licence was suspended.

The applicant argued exceptional hardship and that the vehicle was taken without her consent.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the applicant had given care and control to her daughter.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the applicant owned another vehicle, failing the threshold requirement under O. Reg. 631/98.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant allowed a friend, whose driver's licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction, to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had purchased a new vehicle, meaning an alternative to the impounded vehicle was available.

As the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

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

The applicant testified that she had left the vehicle at home for her son's emergency use and that the suspended driver, an acquaintance of her boarder, took the keys without permission.

The Tribunal found the applicant credible and concluded that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act, as it was taken without her consent.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

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

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

The applicant argued that the vehicle was stolen, as she had removed the licence plates and hidden the keys to prevent her husband from driving.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony credible and concluded that the vehicle was taken without her permission.

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

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The applicant, whose driver's licence was suspended for three years following a Criminal Code conviction, was driving the vehicle at the time of impoundment.

He argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship leading to bankruptcy.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment, finding that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship because an alternative mode of transportation (his wife's vehicle) was available, and the alleged hardship would principally impact the suspended driver.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's boyfriend was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship because she had access to alternative transportation, specifically public transit and rides from co-workers.

The applicant 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 a suspended driver.

The applicant claimed she needed the vehicle for her two-hour commute to work and to complete her hairdressing certificate.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had an alternative mode of transportation (public transit) and therefore did not meet the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The impoundment was confirmed.