Avril A. Farlam

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for work and could not afford the impound fees.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant owned a second vehicle for her full-time job and failed to demonstrate that renting a truck for her part-time job was not a reasonable alternative.

As an alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, the Tribunal concluded that exceptional hardship was not established and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship because he needed it for work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's employer had rented a vehicle for him to use, meaning he had an alternative to the impounded vehicle.

As an alternative was available, the Tribunal could not consider financial or economic loss, and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship.

She claimed she needed the vehicle for work, transporting her pregnant daughter to medical appointments, and taking her son to school and sports.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternative transportation options available, such as rides from coworkers, cabs, buses, and coaches.

Because alternatives existed, the exceptional hardship criteria under the Highway Traffic Act and O. Reg. 631/98 were not met.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship because he needed it for medical appointments for himself and his grandparents.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as family members had been providing transportation and accessible taxis were available.

Since alternatives existed, the Tribunal could not consider financial hardship, and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed Tarion's denial of their year-end statutory warranty claim for defects in their finished basement, specifically gaps between flooring and baseboards and noise in the ceiling.

The Tribunal found that gaps exceeding 3 mm in the closet area were covered by the warranty and ordered Tarion to pay $429.84 for repairs.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the remaining gaps and ceiling noise, finding the appellants failed to prove these issues fell below industry standards or resulted from defective workmanship or materials.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his motor vehicle inspection station (MVIS) licence.

The Director alleged the appellant made false statements on his application and breached the Highway Traffic Act during operations.

The Tribunal found that the appellant submitted a fabricated zoning letter, forged his mechanic's signature on the application and numerous inspection certificates, and failed to maintain required records.

Concluding that the appellant was indifferent to his statutory obligations and posed a risk to public safety, the Tribunal directed the Director to carry out the revocation.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's landlord drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment because she had not consented to her landlord driving it.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence credible and concluded the vehicle was taken without her express or implied consent.

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

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was driven by her common-law husband while his licence was suspended.

She argued the vehicle was stolen by her husband and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the appellant left the keys accessible to her husband, providing implied consent.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternative transportation options available.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was driven by her boyfriend whose licence was suspended.

She argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the boyfriend had access to the keys and had driven her vehicles previously.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including public transit, taxis, help from other parents, and a second vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was driven by her husband while his licence was suspended.

She argued she exercised due diligence by keeping the keys in her purse and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship for medical appointments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding she did not exercise due diligence because she knew his licence was suspended, and there was no exceptional hardship because she owned another vehicle and had neighbours to assist her.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship to his daughter, who relied on the vehicle for medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the daughter had alternative transportation available, as she was able to arrange rides with friends and neighbours for approximately the same cost as driving the impounded vehicle.

As reasonable alternatives existed, the Tribunal concluded that exceptional hardship was not established and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a medical report diagnosing him with alcohol and drug dependence.

The appellant had voluntarily sought treatment and demonstrated over 100 days of abstinence, supported by his family physician who assessed his risk of relapse and impaired driving as very low.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant no longer suffered from alcohol or drug dependence and that his medical condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was allowed and the licence suspension was set aside.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act due to a psychiatric condition.

The appellant's physician reported diagnoses of behavioural/learning disability, ADHD, depression/dysthymia, anxiety disorder, and substance use.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was not adhering to prescribed medical treatment, lacked insight into his condition, and continued to use marijuana and cocaine.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's mental condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship due to her need to care for her children and attend medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as family members were assisting with childcare, providing transportation, and loaning a vehicle.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellants applied for a liquor licence for a new establishment.

A local resident objected, citing noise, parking, and patron behaviour issues associated with the previous licenced establishment at the same location.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application, and the appellants appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the objector's concerns were speculative and based on the unfounded assumption that the new establishment would operate like the previous one.

The appellants provided evidence that they intended to operate a different type of establishment and had taken steps to mitigate noise.

The Tribunal concluded that the objector failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that granting the licence was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application without conditions.

The appellant appealed a 21-day suspension and seizure order of his Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

The Registrar had escalated interventions over several years due to the appellant's poor safety record, high violation rates, and failure to maintain required records.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar had sufficient grounds to believe the appellant would not operate commercial vehicles safely, despite recent efforts to improve.

The suspension order was confirmed.

The Appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke his motor vehicle dealer registration.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the Appellant's 2011 sexual assault conviction and his subsequent failure to disclose the pending criminal charges on his 2012 and 2013 registration renewal applications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the sexual assault appeared to be an isolated incident unlikely to recur, the Appellant knowingly provided false and misleading information to the Registrar on his renewal applications.

The Tribunal concluded that this conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the Appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law, integrity, and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for life.

She argued the vehicle was stolen by her son and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the vehicle was stolen, as the son had access to the keys and stated he was running an errand for her.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the appellant had successfully relied on family members for transportation, meaning there was an alternative to the impounded vehicle.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for an indoor barn venue with a capacity of 300 persons, primarily to serve alcohol during a seasonal farmers market.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from residents concerned about past outdoor music festivals, noise, and zoning compliance.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were speculative and related to past outdoor events rather than the proposed indoor venue.

The Tribunal concluded that the added party failed to prove that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest and directed the Registrar to approve the application without conditions.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the appellant's past criminal convictions for tax evasion, unregistered trading in motor vehicles, bankruptcy, and a previous revocation of his motor vehicle salesperson registration.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's financial position and past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.