Antoine Aouad

The applicant appealed the impoundment of their motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

At the hearing, the Tribunal noted that the applicant's Criminal Code suspension had expired prior to the impoundment.

The Registrar's agent acknowledged the vehicle was improperly impounded and agreed to release it.

The Tribunal concluded the matter without issuing an order.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's son, a suspended driver, was caught driving it.

The applicant argued that the vehicle was stolen by her son without her knowledge or consent while she was out of town, and that she did not report it stolen to police to avoid extending his potential incarceration.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that the vehicle was taken without consent and found that it was stolen at the time of impoundment.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would cause exceptional hardship to his mother and daughter.

The applicant admitted to driving while his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that alternative modes of transportation were available to the applicant and his family, albeit inconvenient.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant owned a second vehicle and that family members were able to assist with transportation.

Because an alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, 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 that the vehicle was stolen by her husband (a suspended driver) and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the husband took the vehicle to buy milk for the family without intent to deprive the applicant of it, meaning it was not stolen.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the applicant owned and had access to a second vehicle.

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 being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The applicant did not attend the hearing, and her counsel relied on an affidavit.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant took reasonable steps to verify the driver's licence validity or that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicant leasing company appealed the 90-day impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was detained while being driven by a lessee whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The applicant argued it exercised due diligence because it had no facility to verify the validity of drivers' licences for leased vehicles, especially when leased to companies with multiple drivers.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's inability to verify licences contradicted its claim of exercising due diligence.

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

The applicant rental car company appealed the impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was rented to a driver whose licence was suspended.

The applicant argued it exercised due diligence by having its staff visually inspect the driver's licence, which appeared valid and showed a future expiry date.

The Tribunal found that the Ministry's policy requiring businesses to verify licence validity by phone or online was not mandated by the Act or regulations.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's procedure of visually checking the licence was reasonable and prudent, satisfying the due diligence requirement, and ordered the release of the vehicle.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under 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 an alternative vehicle during the impoundment period.

As the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship require that no alternative transportation be available, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The applicant argued that the driver's licence was not suspended at the time of the impoundment and that the loss of the vehicle would cause exceptional hardship to the business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant failed to prove the driver held a valid licence and failed to establish exceptional hardship, as alternative transportation was available and there was no proof of immediate, significant, and long-lasting losses.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's roommate, whose licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction, was caught driving it.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had alternative transportation available (taxis) to get to work, and therefore failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

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

The applicant, who was also the suspended driver, claimed he believed his licence was reinstated after paying fines and that the impoundment would negatively impact his business.

The Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility regarding his knowledge of the suspension and failed to establish due diligence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the applicant owned other vehicles and the impact of the loss would only affect the suspended driver himself.

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 that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship to her family and small business.

The vehicle had been driven by a person whose licence was suspended for life due to a Criminal Code conviction for impaired driving.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had alternate modes of transportation available, including a service vehicle, and therefore failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's son lent it to his father, whose driver's licence was suspended.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not given her ex-husband permission to drive the vehicle, and his use of it deprived her of it temporarily without colour of right.

Therefore, the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The applicant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence in believing the driver's licence was valid and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the driver's licence status despite a previous impoundment involving the same driver.

Furthermore, the exceptional hardship ground was statutorily barred due to the prior impoundment of the applicant's vehicle.

The applicant appealed the 90-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The applicant, who was driving while disqualified, claimed exemption from the law as a 'Natural Person' and a 'man of God'.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant did not have a valid licence and thus failed the due diligence test.

The exceptional hardship ground was precluded because the applicant had a previous vehicle impoundment.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a suspended driver.

She argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship due to her chronic illness.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant failed to ask to see the driver's licence and thus did not exercise due diligence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the applicant had not missed medical appointments and was receiving a disability pension, meaning there was no financial loss or health and safety concern.

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

The vehicle was driven by a suspended driver who was staying at the applicant's home.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was taken without the applicant's knowledge or consent, satisfying the definition of a stolen vehicle for the purposes of the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant had access to an alternate vehicle, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle had been leased to a client who defaulted and was subsequently caught driving while suspended.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship because it owned other vehicles that could be sold or leased, meaning alternatives were available.

The Tribunal confirmed the impoundment.