Dr. Antoine A. Aouad

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's mother, whose driver's licence was suspended, took the vehicle without permission and was involved in an accident.

The Tribunal found the appellant credible and concluded that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act, as it was taken without the owner's consent.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence in verifying her boyfriend's driver's licence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to make sufficient inquiries into the status of the driver's licence.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because alternative transportation was available to the appellant, precluding consideration of other hardship factors under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed her ex-boyfriend, an unlicensed and suspended driver, to drive it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative transportation available, albeit inconvenient, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's boyfriend was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to alternative transportation, such as public transit and rides from co-workers, which precluded a finding of exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship and that the vehicle was taken without his consent by his son, whose licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's son took the vehicle without permission, satisfying the definition of 'stolen' under section 50.2(3)(a) of the Act.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was driven by a suspended driver to whom the appellant's husband had given the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the husband failed to exercise due diligence because he merely asked if the driver had a valid licence without asking to see it.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the husband had access to alternative transportation, including a rental car and a second vehicle registered to the household.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant was caught driving while his licence was suspended due to an impaired driving conviction in the United States.

The appellant argued he was unaware of the reciprocal agreement suspending his Ontario licence and claimed exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence to determine his licence status and that alternative transportation was available, precluding a finding of 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 the appellant's husband drove it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued that the loss of the vehicle caused hardship due to her pregnancy and medical appointments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that alternative transportation was available, including public transit and other vehicles at her residence, and that her unborn baby was not at risk.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's spouse, a suspended driver, was caught driving it.

The appellant argued the vehicle was taken without permission and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the keys were readily available and there was no explicit prohibition against the spouse driving.

The Tribunal also dismissed the exceptional hardship claim because the appellant had access to alternative transportation, having rented a vehicle for work.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The appellant, whose Ontario licence was suspended, claimed he believed he could drive because he held a New Brunswick licence.

He also argued the impoundment caused hardship because his newborn child needed to attend medical appointments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant did not exercise due diligence to ascertain his licence status in Ontario.

The Tribunal also found that exceptional hardship was not established, as alternative transportation was available and the child's health was not in immediate danger.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing they exercised due diligence in determining the driver's licence was not suspended.

The appellant failed to appear at the teleconference hearing.

Without evidence from the appellant to support the due diligence claim, the Tribunal found the statutory criteria were not met and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

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

The appellant, who had recently filed for bankruptcy and relied on the vehicle to transport tools for his roofing job, demonstrated that no alternative transportation was available and that the loss of the vehicle would cause immediate and significant financial hardship.

The Tribunal found that the criteria for exceptional hardship were met and ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant, whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction, was caught driving it.

The appellant's friend, who normally uses the vehicle to transport her children and attend medical appointments, testified that the loss of the vehicle caused hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that alternate transportation was available, as the friend was able to reschedule appointments, obtain necessities with her mother's help, and had access to a nearby food market and 911 services.

The appellant corporation appealed the impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an employee whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by inspecting the employee's licence prior to hiring him, and alternatively claimed exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant made genuine and credible efforts to inspect the driver's licence and had no reason to suspect it was invalid, thereby satisfying the due diligence requirement.

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

The appellant corporation appealed the 90-day impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after an employee was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for life due to a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the exceptional hardship ground was precluded because the vehicle had been previously impounded for the same driver's actions.

The due diligence ground also failed because the appellant admitted to not verifying the employee's licence status despite the prior impoundment.

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

The vehicle was impounded after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not meet the criteria for exceptional hardship because it was able to rent a replacement vehicle to continue its business operations.

The Tribunal also noted that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not conducting regular licence checks on its employees.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's husband, whose licence was suspended, drove it.

The appellant argued that the vehicle was taken without her knowledge or consent while they were camping, and that she had explicitly told her husband not to drive it.

The Tribunal found the appellant credible and concluded that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act at the time of the impoundment.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing he exercised due diligence in determining the driver's licence was not suspended.

The appellant admitted he allowed the suspended driver to use the vehicle based solely on the driver's word that his licence had been reinstated, without actually examining the licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet the due diligence requirement under s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act, as it is incumbent upon an owner to at least examine the licence.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed a business associate, whose licence was suspended, to drive it.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because he had access to alternative transportation, specifically his bicycle and his wife's vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by the appellant while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment, finding that the appellant had access to public transportation and therefore failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.