Antoine Aouad, M.D.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his 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 Tribunal found that the applicant had alternative modes of transportation available, including personal and company vehicles.

As 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 confirmed.

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 the applicant allowed a suspended driver to operate it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had an alternative mode of transportation through his parents and failed to prove that any losses resulting from the impoundment were significant and long-lasting.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The applicant, a Revenue Canada auditor living in a rural area, claimed she needed the vehicle for work and had taken paid vacation leave since the impoundment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had not suffered significant and long-lasting losses, as she had not lost income and had not attempted to mitigate her losses by renting a vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The applicant's licence was suspended due to an out-of-province conviction, but he had checked with Service Ontario multiple times and was told his licence was valid.

The Tribunal found that while the licence was technically suspended, the applicant had exercised due diligence in attempting to determine its status.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

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

The applicant testified that she had forbidden the suspended driver from driving her vehicle and that he took the keys without her knowledge or consent.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence and 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 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The applicant argued the vehicle was stolen, as she had forbidden her ex-husband from driving it and left the keys at home for her landlord while she was out of the country.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that the vehicle was taken without her consent and found that it met the definition of 'stolen' for the purposes of the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The applicant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence and would suffer exceptional hardship.

The applicant had left her vehicle with a licenced driver (her boyfriend's brother) to drive her to the hospital, but a suspended driver (her boyfriend) ended up driving it without her knowledge.

The Tribunal found that the applicant exercised due diligence by entrusting the vehicle to a licenced driver and could not have predicted or controlled the suspended driver's actions.

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

The applicant appealed the impoundment of their 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 applicant, who receives Ontario Disability Support Payments and lives below the poverty line, testified that they had no adequate alternative transportation and were stuck at home.

The Tribunal found that no alternative transportation existed and that the loss of the vehicle caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar 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 being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment, finding that the applicant had access to alternative modes of transportation, such as taxis and rides from friends and family, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

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 Tribunal found that the applicant had access to alternative modes of transportation, including public transit and her mother's vehicle.

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 appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that she was driving the vehicle, not the suspended driver, and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal accepted the police officer's testimony that the applicant and the suspended driver switched seats before being stopped.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship because alternative modes of transportation were 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, 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 applicant had alternative modes of transportation available, including another vehicle, public transit, and rides from a friend.

Because an alternative existed, 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 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 a suspended driver.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had access to alternate transportation, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under section 10(1) of 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 that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship to the vehicle's lessee.

The Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that the applicant owned approximately 1,400 vehicles.

Under O. Reg. 631/98, exceptional hardship can only be considered if no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available.

Because the applicant owned other vehicles, the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship were not met.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant allowed a driver, whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction, to drive it.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that public transportation was available to the applicant.

Under O. Reg. 631/98, exceptional hardship cannot be established if an alternative to the impounded vehicle exists.

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

The vehicle was impounded after a suspended driver took control of it without the applicant's permission.

The applicant had lent the vehicle to a licensed driver and explicitly warned the suspended driver not to drive.

The Tribunal found that the applicant exercised due diligence under section 50.2(3)(c) of the Act.

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

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

The vehicle had been driven by a suspended driver unknown to the applicant.

The applicant provided evidence that the theft was reported to the police and their insurance company.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the vehicle was taken without the applicant's consent and with the intention to deprive them of it, satisfying the criteria for a stolen vehicle.

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 being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The applicant claimed she needed the vehicle to transport her children, including one with special needs, to school and medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had access to alternative transportation, including assistance from her mother and a rental vehicle, and therefore failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant's evidence regarding the alleged theft to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and her admitted intoxication.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim, noting that the applicant had access to public transportation and was provided with bus passes, meaning an alternative to the impounded vehicle existed.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their commercial vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would cause exceptional hardship to their refrigeration business.

The vehicle had been driven by the applicant's spouse, whose licence was suspended for life due to an impaired driving conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had alternative modes of transportation available, as they were currently using their personal vehicle for business purposes.

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