Bryant Greenbaum

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the sole shareholder allowed her father-in-law, a suspended driver, to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as the corporation owned eight other vehicles and the shareholder had access to her mother's vehicle.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to demonstrate an immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed a friend, whose licence was suspended, to drive it for his moving business.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to make active inquiries about the driver's licence status despite knowing of past issues.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had reasonable alternatives, such as renting trucks, and his business continued without significant or lasting loss.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her son drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant filed her appeal late but was granted an extension of time.

On the merits, the appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment, finding the appellant had access to alternative transportation and failed to demonstrate that the financial loss was immediate, significant, and lasting.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle after a former co-worker drove it while suspended.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to actively inquire about the driver's licence status and that reasonable alternatives to the vehicle existed, such as public transportation, negating the claim of exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after she allowed her boyfriend to drive it despite knowing his licence was suspended.

She argued she felt ill and asked him to drive, claiming due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding she did not exercise due diligence because she knew of the suspension.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as she had reasonable alternatives to the vehicle for her college visits and job search, and the impoundment did not pose a threat to health or safety.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days due to multiple alleged infractions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the licensee breached several provisions of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations, including failing to supervise the sale and service of liquor, permitting an underage person to consume liquor without checking identification, permitting drunkenness on the premises, overcrowding, and failing to comply with the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The Tribunal ordered written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The Vintner's Quality Alliance Ontario issued a compliance order requiring the appellant vineyard to remove the term 'Prince Edward County' from its website banner.

The appellant appealed the order.

The Tribunal found that the term was used to describe the geographical location of the vineyard, which produces both wine and cider, rather than to describe a specific unapproved wine.

The Tribunal held that interpreting the regulation to prohibit a vineyard from stating its factual location would lead to absurd consequences.

The compliance order was dismissed.

The Appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Appellant argued she exercised due diligence by previously seeing him show his licence to a security guard, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her health issues and work requirements.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant failed to take sufficient steps to verify the licence status before allowing him to drive.

The Tribunal also found that the Appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle and did not demonstrate an immediate, significant, and lasting threat to her health, safety, or employment.