Chantal Proulx

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after its employee was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by asking the employee for a copy of his licence and relying on its insurance company, and claimed exceptional hardship due to financial struggles.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that simply obtaining a copy of a licence without a verification policy did not constitute due diligence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had other vehicles and failed to demonstrate that renting a replacement was not a viable alternative.

The appellant's motor vehicle was impounded for 45 days after his grandson was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship, arguing he needed the vehicle for medical appointments and errands due to severe arthritis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives available, such as relying on his grandson, his brother, or taking a taxi, and therefore failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative to the impounded vehicle existed, as she was able to use public transportation and had other vehicles registered in her name.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

L'appelante a interjeté appel de la mise en fourrière de son véhicule automobile pour une durée de 45 jours, au motif que cela lui causerait un préjudice excessif.

Son ami avait conduit le véhicule alors que son permis était suspendu.

Le Tribunal a conclu que l'appelante disposait d'autres moyens de transport (covoiturage, transport en commun, marche, taxi) et n'a pas démontré l'absence de solution de rechange.

L'appel a été rejeté et la mise en fourrière confirmée.

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

She argued that she exercised due diligence when lending her vehicle to a friend and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship as a single mother on social assistance.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to make any inquiries about the validity of the driver's licence and that she had alternative transportation options, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motorcycle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by the driver and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant was present when the driver took the motorcycle and did not establish that it was stolen.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim, noting the appellant had other registered vehicles and could not rely on impoundment costs as a basis for financial hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant's motor vehicle was impounded for 45 days after she lent it to a friend whose driver's licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant appealed the impoundment to the Licence Appeal Tribunal on the grounds of due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not asking her friend about the status of his driver's licence before giving him the keys.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to public transportation and alternative vehicles.

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

The vehicle was impounded after a mechanic, whose driver's licence was suspended, test-drove it while repairing it.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship as the vehicle was essential to its tire recycling business.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no alternative to the vehicle, the financial loss would be immediate, significant, and lasting, and the impact would be on the appellant rather than the suspended driver.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant demonstrated exceptional hardship and 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 daughter was caught driving it while her licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The applicant argued the vehicle was stolen by her daughter and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she intended to give the vehicle to her stepson for work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the daughter intended to steal the vehicle, and concluding that exceptional hardship was not established because the stepson had alternative transportation options.