David B. Caryll

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was stolen by his brother-in-law at the time it was detained.

The brother-in-law was caught driving the vehicle while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and his spouse frequently lent the vehicle to the brother-in-law and that there was implied consent for its use.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after her boyfriend was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant filed an appeal 67 days after the 15-day appeal period expired and brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test for extending time and found that the appellant had no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was lengthy and unjustified, and the merits of the appeal were weak given that this was the third time the vehicle had been impounded with the same driver.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant 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 police stopped it and discovered the driver's licence was suspended for a Criminal Code offence.

The Tribunal found that alternatives to the vehicle existed, such as public transportation and a leased vehicle, and that financial costs or inconvenience could not be considered as exceptional hardship under the legislation.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her common-law spouse was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as she had explicitly forbidden him from driving it and attempted to press charges when she discovered it missing.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence credible, noting she had ended the relationship over the incident.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of the Act and ordered its release.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' order to impound their motor vehicle for 45 days after it was caught being driven by a suspended driver.

The applicant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to loss of employment opportunities and inability to visit family.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate that no alternative transportation was available, as public transit and taxis were accessible.

The applicant appealed a 45-day vehicle impoundment order made by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's brother-in-law was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that no alternative transportation was available, as she had access to rides from family, public transportation, and a sixth licensed vehicle at her residence.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' order to impound her vehicle for 45 days after it was driven by an acquaintance with a suspended licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant took no steps to verify the driver's licence status, thus failing the due diligence test.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant had alternative transportation options, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The impoundment order was confirmed.