Antoine Aouad, M.D.

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

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

The applicant, who suffers from severe medical conditions including pneumonia and requires regular medical monitoring, missed approximately 14 critical pulmonary clinic appointments due to the lack of transportation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant credible and determined that the loss of the vehicle posed a threat to her health and safety, satisfying the criteria for 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 impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant owned two other vehicles and had alternative modes of transportation available, thereby failing 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, arguing the vehicle was stolen by her common-law spouse and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's spouse, a disqualified driver, took the vehicle without her knowledge or consent while she was sleeping, intending to temporarily deprive her of it.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment and ordered the Registrar to release it, though it noted the exceptional hardship ground would have failed.

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 the applicant was caught driving while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that alternate modes of transportation, such as public transit, taxis, and vehicles owned by his ex-spouse, were available to the applicant and his children.

Because an alternative existed, the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship were not met.

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

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The respondent's agent informed the Tribunal that the vehicle had been improperly impounded for 45 days instead of the proper 7 days for an administrative driver's licence suspension, and had already been released by the police.

As the vehicle was already released, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and concluded the matter.

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

At the hearing, the Registrar admitted that the vehicle had been improperly impounded and agreed to release it without cost to the applicant.

The Tribunal ordered the release of 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 a suspended driver.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as she had not mitigated her circumstances by exploring alternatives such as a rental vehicle or taxi service, and her claims of financial loss and health impacts did not meet the statutory criteria.

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 cause exceptional hardship.

The applicant, a new mother on maternity leave, had allowed her boyfriend to drive her vehicle home despite knowing his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had alternative modes of transportation available, such as rides from friends and family, 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 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's brother was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a criminal conviction.

The applicant argued he needed the vehicle for work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had access to a company truck as an alternative mode of transportation, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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 was caught driving it while her licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The applicant argued that he exercised due diligence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant took no reasonable steps to verify his daughter's licence status and that alternate modes of transportation were available, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

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

The applicant, who was the suspended driver at the time of the impoundment, claimed the vehicle was needed to transport materials for his wife's business and because she had difficulty using public transit due to a fracture.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that under O. Reg. 631/98, financial losses cannot be considered when the owner and the suspended driver are the same person.

Furthermore, no specific losses were established for the applicant's wife, as she had not been able to work since her injury.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an employee whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The applicant argued the licence was not suspended, that it exercised due diligence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the licence was indeed suspended, the applicant failed to exercise due diligence by not obtaining a driver's abstract, and no exceptional hardship existed because the applicant had alternative vehicles available.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by the applicant's daughter, whose licence was suspended for failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had access to alternative modes of transportation, such as the Greyhound bus, and therefore failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.