Antoine Aouad

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's son allowed an acquaintance to drive it, and the acquaintance was found to be driving with a suspended license.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for exceptional hardship or due diligence.

However, because the applicant did not give the acquaintance permission to drive the vehicle, the Tribunal found that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act.

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 taken without permission by her son, a suspended driver, while she was hospitalized.

The applicant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because she lives in a rural area without public transit and needs the vehicle for medical appointments upon her discharge.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that no reasonable alternative transportation was available and that depriving the applicant of her vehicle would threaten her health.

The appeal was allowed on the ground of exceptional hardship, and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The applicant appealed the 180-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by her son at the time it was detained.

The son, a suspended driver, had taken the vehicle without permission.

The tribunal noted this was the third time the applicant's vehicle had been impounded while being driven by her son.

The tribunal found that the applicant did not take necessary precautions to prevent her son from driving the vehicle and concluded that the vehicle was not stolen within the meaning of the Act.

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.

She argued that the vehicle was stolen by a suspended driver and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was borrowed, not stolen, as the applicant had lent it to a friend who then allowed the suspended driver to use it.

The Tribunal also dismissed the exceptional hardship claim because the applicant had access to alternative transportation.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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 due to her medical condition.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that alternative modes of transportation were available to the applicant, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under the statutory criteria.

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 because the applicant was driving while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish due diligence, as he merely assumed his suspension had ended without verifying with the Ministry.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because alternative modes of transportation, including public transit and rides from family, were available.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing he exercised due diligence because he was unaware his brother-in-law's licence was suspended when the brother-in-law took the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the applicant left the vehicle and keys at his sister's residence without imposing restrictions, despite the brother-in-law having a lifetime licence suspension since 2004.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable steps to ensure the driver was licensed, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the 45-day impoundment.

The applicant 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 the applicant's grandson drove it while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had alternative modes of transportation, as she owned another vehicle and her son assisted her with transportation to medical appointments.

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 applicant, a car rental company, appealed the 45-day impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the driver was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The applicant argued that the driver's licence was not suspended and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because the vehicle was rented using a stolen credit card.

The Tribunal found that the driver's licence was indeed suspended and that the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as it owned other vehicles and no documented losses were proven.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicant rental company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The applicant argued that the driver's licence was not suspended and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because the vehicle was rented using a stolen credit card.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the driver's licence was indeed suspended at the time of the stop.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the applicant owned other vehicles and failed to provide evidence of immediate, significant, and lasting loss.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after lending it to a friend whose licence was suspended.

She argued she exercised due diligence by glancing at the licence and claimed exceptional hardship due to medical appointments and low income.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant failed to verify the licence expiry date and did not establish exceptional hardship because public transit was available and her medical needs were accommodated by phone.

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

The applicant had been convicted of dangerous driving and given a conditional discharge with a probation order allowing him to drive for work purposes.

He was subsequently stopped and his vehicle was impounded because his licence was suspended under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant exercised due diligence by relying on the judge's probation order and confirming it with legal counsel.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The applicant rental car company appealed the 180-day impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it exercised due diligence by visually checking the renter's driver's licence.

The renter's licence was suspended due to a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to exercise due diligence, noting it accepted licences at face value and had not implemented policies to verify validity despite previous impoundments.

The appeal was dismissed and the 180-day impoundment was confirmed.

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

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

The applicant argued that it exercised due diligence by hiring a licensed driver to replace the suspended driver, and that the suspended driver took the vehicle without authorization while the licensed driver was sleeping.

The Tribunal found that the applicant exercised due diligence by entrusting the vehicle only to the licensed driver.

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

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's friend, whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction, was found driving it.

The applicant argued that she did not know the driver was suspended and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the driver was indeed suspended at the time and that the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship because alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit and taxis, were available to her.

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 the applicant's boyfriend drove it while his licence was suspended for life due to a criminal conviction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had alternative modes of transportation available, such as rides from neighbours and Community Care, and therefore failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by his son at the time it was detained and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony credible that he had forbidden his son from driving the vehicle and had hidden the keys.

The Tribunal concluded that the vehicle was taken without consent and therefore 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act.

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

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 the applicant's grandson was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for life.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had access to alternate transportation, as her grandson's girlfriend was able to drive her to medical appointments and court appearances.

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

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, arguing exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's daughter's partner, a suspended driver, drove it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had alternative modes of transportation available through friends, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant had access to alternative modes of transportation, including public transit and another vehicle registered in her name.

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

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.