Evelyn Spence

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle after his friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant took no steps to verify the driver's licence status and had access to alternative vehicles, including a work van and vehicles belonging to his father and girlfriend.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to alternative transportation, including another vehicle she owned, vehicles owned by family members, and rides from neighbours, which mitigated the loss of the impounded vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after he was caught driving while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

He argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because he needed the vehicle for his construction business and his employees were losing wages.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove there were no alternative vehicles available and failed to establish that the impoundment caused a significant and lasting threat to the health or safety of persons ordinarily transported by the vehicle.

The Tribunal noted it is barred from considering the financial or economic loss suffered by the suspended driver.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a 45-day motor vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded because it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed the appeal 33 days after the statutory 15-day appeal period expired, citing exceptional hardship due to impoundment fees.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, significant delay, prejudice to the respondent, and lack of merit as the appellant had access to alternative transportation.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized after being driven by a suspended driver.

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for her secondary employment and to transport her disabled aunt.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including rides from her mother and access to other vehicles, which mitigated the loss.

As alternatives were available, the test for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 was not met.

The appellant sought an extension of time to file an appeal of a vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded because it was driven by an individual whose licence was suspended and subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant filed her notice of motion 65 days after the statutory appeal period expired.

The Tribunal found no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, a considerable delay, and that the appeal lacked merit as the appellant failed to establish due diligence.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant, an insulin-dependent diabetic, appealed the suspension of his driver's licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

The suspension followed a medical condition report indicating the appellant suffered an episode of severe hypoglycemia requiring outside intervention.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the hypoglycemic event was an isolated, avoidable error and that the appellant demonstrated excellent control and understanding of his condition.

The Tribunal concluded the condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was impounded after being driven by a friend with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for her employment and an unpaid student placement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as public transportation and rides from peers and family.

As alternatives were available, the test for exceptional hardship was not met.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision confirming the medical suspension of his driver's licence.

He argued that the Tribunal should have contacted his doctors for further clarification, constituting new evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that it is not the Tribunal's role to solicit evidence on behalf of parties and that the applicant failed to provide any new evidence that could not have been obtained prior to the hearing.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles after his treating physician submitted a medical condition report indicating suspected mild dementia following a failed cognitive screening test.

The appellant appealed the suspension, arguing he did not have dementia and that the test was affected by his hearing loss and medication.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the medical evidence established a mild cognitive impairment and that a functional driving assessment was required to ensure public road safety.

The appellant appealed the suspension of his driver's licence, which was suspended after the Ministry of Transportation received a medical condition report indicating he suffered from hepatic encephalopathy resulting in cognitive impairment.

The appellant argued he was misdiagnosed and actually suffered from a speech variant condition that did not affect his cognitive functioning.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including reports from multiple physicians expressing strong reservations about his fitness to drive, established that the appellant suffered from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Ministry of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence following a medical report indicating he had suffered a seizure.

The Ministry required a five-year seizure-free period before reinstating his commercial licence, based on medical records suggesting a prior seizure and a diagnosis of epilepsy.

The appellant argued he had only experienced one seizure and disputed the accuracy of hospital triage notes referencing a prior seizure.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence reliably established the appellant had suffered at least two unprovoked seizures, meeting the standard for epilepsy.

Given the risk of recurrence and the short period since his last seizure, the Tribunal concluded his condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a commercial vehicle and confirmed the licence downgrade.

The appellant sought $6,061.48 from the Travel Compensation Fund after his airline ceased operations, leaving him and his family stranded in Kosovo.

TICO reimbursed $1,180, representing the unused return portion of the tickets not already refunded by the appellant's credit card.

The appellant appealed, seeking the full cost of the original round-trip tickets and the replacement tickets.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that under Ontario Regulation 26/05, the Fund only covers travel services paid for but not provided, and expressly excludes reimbursement for alternate travel services, consequential damages, or amounts already reimbursed by a credit card.

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

The vehicle was impounded because the appellant was driving in Ontario without an ignition interlock device, contrary to a condition on his Ontario driving record, despite holding a valid Alberta driver's licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment was unlawful because his licence was not suspended.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the lack of a licence suspension is not a valid ground for appeal when the impoundment was based on a contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant appealed a Cancellation and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles due to an extremely poor commercial vehicle safety rating.

The appellant's violation rate reached 115.08% of the maximum allowable threshold, driven by multiple at-fault collisions, convictions, and vehicle defects.

Despite previous Ministry interventions and warnings, the appellant failed to implement effective remedial measures or improve its safety record.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar had ample reason to believe the appellant would not operate its commercial vehicles safely and confirmed the order to cancel the appellant's CVOR certificate and seize its permits and plates.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle, which was seized after his daughter drove it while her licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to financial loss and inconvenience.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had an alternative to the impounded vehicle, as he and his family were able to use taxis to meet their immediate needs.

The Tribunal also declined to consider the appellant's late assertion that the vehicle had been stolen, as it was not raised in the Notice of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to refuse his application for registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant's past conduct, including acting as an unregistered dealer, falsifying bills of sale, and failing to disclose material vehicle history, afforded reasonable grounds for the belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had engaged in unregistered trading, misrepresented his affiliation with a dealership, falsified documents, and failed to disclose a vehicle's collision and theft history to vulnerable consumers.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's conduct demonstrated a lack of honesty and integrity, and that conditions would not adequately protect the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the registration.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended under section 57 of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to complete a remedial measures program following three previous suspensions related to drinking and driving.

The appellant appealed the suspension to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing, finding that it lacked jurisdiction because section 50(1) of the Act does not grant the Tribunal authority to hear appeals of suspensions imposed under section 57.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following an alcohol withdrawal-related seizure.

The Registrar argued the suspension should remain until the appellant was seizure-free and abstinent for one year.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had abstained from alcohol for nearly 11 months, had not suffered subsequent seizures, and did not meet the definition of alcohol abuse or dependence.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove the appellant was addicted to alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and ordered the suspension set aside.

The appellant applied for registration as a gaming supplier under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the registration based on the past conduct of the appellant's director, which included numerous Highway Traffic Act convictions, a criminal charge for assault, and convictions for failing to comply with court orders.

The director also failed to disclose these offences in the application materials and provided false information during an interview.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the director's past conduct and lack of candour provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act in accordance with the law, honesty, and integrity.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the refusal.