Antoine Aouad, M.D.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his commercial vehicle after it was driven by an employee whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by seeing the licence in the driver's wallet and claimed exceptional hardship due to the impact on his snow removal business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not actually examining the licence.

The exceptional hardship claim also failed because the appellant had access to an alternative personal vehicle and had hired someone else with a truck to assist his business.

The appellant 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 a suspended driver.

The Tribunal found the appellant did not exercise due diligence, as the driver's licence had been confiscated months prior, and she admitted to not closely examining the licence she claimed to have seen.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the appellant had access to public transportation and family assistance.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was not stolen, as implied consent was probable given the father and daughter lived together and a previous similar impoundment had occurred.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the applicant owned two other vehicles, meaning alternative transportation was available.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence in determining the driver's licence was not suspended.

The applicant testified she paid the driver's outstanding fines and was told by court staff and a Ministry of Transportation representative that there were no suspensions against the driver.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony credible and concluded she had exercised due diligence by contacting the authorities on multiple occasions.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The applicant's vehicle was impounded under the Highway Traffic Act.

The applicant filed an appeal 8 days after the 15-day deadline and brought a motion for an extension of time.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test for granting an extension and found that the applicant had no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant given the 45-day impoundment period, and the appeal lacked merit.

The motion for an extension of time was denied and the impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of 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 a repair shop and had not given anyone permission to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was driven without the owner's consent and was therefore "stolen" within the meaning of section 50.2(3)(a) 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 the vehicle was stolen by her boyfriend and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the vehicle was not stolen, as the boyfriend had implied consent to use it.

The Tribunal also dismissed the exceptional hardship claim because the applicant had access to alternative transportation, including public transit and assistance from family.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her spouse was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The applicant argued she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove exceptional hardship because she had alternative transportation options.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the basis of due diligence, finding it reasonable that the applicant relied on having previously seen her spouse's driver's licence and having attempted to add him to her insurance policy without knowing of his suspension.

The Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had a relationship with the suspended driver, did not call the police when the vehicle was taken, and failed to prove the vehicle was stolen.

The Tribunal also dismissed the exceptional hardship claim, finding the applicant had alternatives to the vehicle and did not suffer significant, lasting loss.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The applicant testified that while out of the country, they entrusted the vehicle to a friend, whose keys were subsequently taken by a suspended driver unknown to the applicant.

The Tribunal found the applicant credible and concluded the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment.

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

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by the applicant's brother, whose licence was suspended.

The applicant testified that her brother took the vehicle without her knowledge or consent and expressed willingness to lay theft charges against him.

The Tribunal found the applicant credible and concluded the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment.

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 the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the driver, who was not the applicant, was found to be driving with a suspended licence due to a Criminal Code conviction.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant was in the vehicle at the time, failed to verify the driver's licence, and had alternative transportation, thus failing to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship.

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 Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had alternative transportation available, as she was able to get rides to work and daycare.

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

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

The applicant failed to appear at the hearing.

Due to the applicant's absence, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of establishing exceptional hardship, as there was no evidence regarding the availability of alternate transportation.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's boyfriend, whose licence was suspended for life, took the vehicle without her consent while she was sleeping.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of the Act, as it was taken without the owner's knowledge or consent.

The Tribunal also found that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship due to the applicant's pregnancy and residence in an isolated area.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship to its farming business.

The vehicle had been driven by a suspended driver after the applicant's employee lent it to him.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the vehicle was not stolen and that the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship because it owned several other farm vehicles, meaning alternatives were available.

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

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

The applicant provided evidence that she was facing eviction due to rent arrears and had a prospective buyer for the vehicle, but the sale was contingent on its release from impoundment.

The Tribunal found the applicant credible and concluded that the impending eviction and potential loss of the vehicle sale constituted exceptional hardship.

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 exceptional hardship.

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

The applicant claimed she needed the vehicle for work and could not afford impoundment fees.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had an alternative mode of transportation, as she moved in with a friend who drove her to work.

Since 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 impoundment of its commercial 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.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no alternative vehicle capable of pulling its trailers and that the impoundment was causing a significant and immediate financial loss of $1,300 per day.

Concluding that this loss would create exceptional hardship for the business, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the 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 allowed the father of her children, whose licence was suspended for life due to an impaired driving conviction, to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had access to alternative transportation, such as cabs and Community Care services, and therefore failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.