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 common-law partner, whose licence was suspended, drove it.

The appellant argued that the vehicle was taken without her consent while she was asleep, after she had explicitly refused him permission to drive it.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible and concluded that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of section 50.2(3)(a) 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 section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant's daughter was the primary user of the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the appellant owned other vehicles, meaning alternative transportation was available.

Under section 10(1) of O. Reg. 631/98, the availability of an alternative precludes a finding of exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended for life following a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because alternative transportation was available, as evidenced by the appellant hiring commercial waste disposal firms to mitigate the loss of the vehicle.

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 allowed a suspended driver to drive her to the airport.

The appellant argued she needed the vehicle to look for work in the hair styling industry.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had lost her job prior to the impoundment and failed to demonstrate a significant and long-lasting loss of income as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The appellant had left his vehicle with a neighbour for repairs, unaware the neighbour was a suspended driver.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen and the appellant did not exercise due diligence.

The exceptional hardship claim failed because the appellant had another vehicle registered in his name, which under O. Reg. 631/98 constitutes an available alternative, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her son, whose licence was suspended for a drinking and driving conviction, drove her to the hospital.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence in verifying her son's licence status.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not meet the criteria for exceptional hardship because alternative transportation, including public transit and assistance from family members, was available.

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 exceptional hardship and that the vehicle was stolen.

The vehicle had been driven by a person whose licence was suspended for life due to an impaired driving conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternative transportation options, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal also found the vehicle was not stolen, as the appellant had previously permitted the suspended driver to use it without verifying his licence status.

The impoundment was confirmed.