Avril A. Farlam

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her son was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to financial crisis and her need to commute to work.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had alternative transportation available, including rides from family members and access to a second vehicle she owned.

As alternatives existed, the Tribunal was precluded from considering financial loss.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motorcycle, which was impounded after he was found operating it without a valid driver's licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because he could not afford the impoundment fees on his social assistance income.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as walking, obtaining rides from family, and using public transportation or taxis.

As the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the vehicle, the Tribunal confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's former spouse was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock device condition on her driver's licence.

The Tribunal found that the driver's licence was subject to the condition at the time of the stop.

The appellant failed to establish that he exercised due diligence in checking the driver's licence, as he provided no evidence of taking any steps to do so.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no exceptional hardship, as the driver had access to alternative transportation.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial truck, which was seized when an employee was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition on his licence.

The appellant argued the condition had been removed and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the vehicle was needed to transport employees.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the driver's licence was still subject to the condition and that no exceptional hardship existed because the appellant owned 17 other vehicles that could be used as alternatives.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a medical condition report indicating a prolonged loss of consciousness and possible seizure.

At the hearing, the appellant brought a motion for a confidentiality order to remove his personal health information and name from the public record.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant's privacy interest did not outweigh the open court principle.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the appellant suffered from an unexplained episode of loss of consciousness that posed a risk to road safety.

The Tribunal confirmed the licence suspension and declined to award costs to the appellant.

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

The appellant argued that the driver had a valid Nova Scotia licence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship to its business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the driver's Ontario licence was suspended at the time of the stop and that the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship because alternative transportation options, such as renting a vehicle or using ride-sharing services, were available.

The appellants, a motor vehicle salesperson and a motor vehicle dealer, appealed a Tribunal decision directing the revocation of their registrations to the Divisional Court.

They brought a motion before the Tribunal for a stay of the revocation decision pending the outcome of their appeal.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the appellants failed to establish irreparable harm, as their anticipated financial losses and business closure could be quantified in monetary terms.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay, as the public interest in consumer protection outweighed the appellants' private commercial interests, given their history of non-compliance with registration conditions.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred when her granddaughter allowed an unlicensed driver to operate it.

The Tribunal first granted an extension of time to file the appeal, noting the 84-year-old appellant's lack of computer access and good faith efforts to file by mail.

On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence to ensure the driver was licensed.

The Tribunal also rejected the claim of exceptional hardship, as the appellant owned a second vehicle and her husband owned a truck, providing alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's liquor licence due to multiple infractions, including serving alcohol after hours, fire code violations, employing uncertified staff, and breaching specific licence conditions.

The appellant failed to attend the electronic hearing.

Proceeding in the appellant's absence, the Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the Registrar's inspectors and witnesses.

The Tribunal found that the appellant contravened the Act and its licence conditions, and that its conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that it 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 revoke the licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which was driven by an individual without a valid driver's licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by asking the driver and a friend if the driver had a valid licence, and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship due to his medical needs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that accepting the word of the driver without verifying the licence did not constitute due diligence.

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

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized when her boyfriend was caught driving it without a valid licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the boyfriend intended to deprive her of the vehicle, noting she declined to press charges.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternative transportation options, including Uber, transit, and another vehicle she owned.

The appellants appealed two statements of account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for veterinary and boarding costs incurred after their two dogs were removed under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board confirmed the first statement of account in full, finding the veterinary costs reasonable given the dogs' medical conditions.

The Board varied the second statement of account by deducting the cost of a veterinary consultation and treatment projection letter obtained for legal proceedings, but confirmed the remaining boarding and medical costs as fair and reasonable.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition involving severe hypoglycemia and chronic kidney disease, following an incident where he lost consciousness while driving.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant suffers from these conditions, they are not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal relied on evidence from the appellant's treating endocrinologist, who confirmed that the incident was isolated, the appellant had regained adequate glycemic control, and he had implemented new monitoring technology and practices.

The Tribunal set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed a statement of account for the care of dogs removed from her possession.

She brought a motion to modify her grounds of appeal to include issues regarding the lawfulness of the dogs' removal and costs related to specific dogs not included in the statement of account.

The Animal Care Review Board denied the motion, finding that the additional issues had either been resolved in previous settled appeals or were outside the statutory appeal period, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear collateral attacks on previously disposed matters.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act for driving while suspended, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The appellant and his spouse claimed they needed the vehicle for medical appointments, caregiving for elderly parents, and family visits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as taxis and help from friends, and that inconvenience does not constitute exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Removal and a Decision to Keep an Animal in Care regarding their two dogs, which were removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector due to untreated chronic skin conditions.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the appellants had failed to comply with multiple compliance orders requiring them to obtain and follow veterinary recommendations, citing financial constraints.

The Board confirmed the removal and the decision to keep the dogs in care, concluding that returning the dogs to the appellants would likely result in them being placed immediately back in distress due to a lack of necessary veterinary care.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition, specifically severe hypoglycemia and chronic kidney disease, following an incident where he lost consciousness while driving.

The Tribunal found that while the appellant has the medical conditions, they are not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal relied on evidence from the appellant's treating endocrinologist, who confirmed the incident was isolated, the appellant had regained adequate glycemic control, and had implemented new monitoring technology and practices.

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

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was being driven by her husband whose driver's licence was suspended.

The sole ground of appeal was exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the exceptional hardship ground was not available to the appellant under section 50.2(4) of the Highway Traffic Act because the vehicle had been previously impounded.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty of $1,000 issued by the Registrar for exceeding the indoor capacity of its licensed premises.

An inspector counted 205 persons in an area licensed for 112 persons.

The Tribunal accepted the inspector's evidence over the appellant's witnesses, finding the Registrar established the contravention on a balance of probabilities.

The monetary penalty was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse his registration as a Category 2 Gaming Assistant.

The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's failure to disclose a criminal conviction for voyeurism, for which he was on probation, as well as numerous driving-related convictions and suspensions.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had repeatedly provided dishonest and incomplete answers on his registration applications.

Concluding that the appellant's past conduct demonstrated he would not act with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, the Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's order refusing registration.