Geneviève Blais

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which was seized after his son was caught driving it while suspended.

The appellant argued exceptional hardship, claiming he needed the vehicle to assist his daughter-in-law with childcare and could not use public transit due to health issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, noting he owned a second vehicle and lacked medical evidence to support his claims of physical inability to use transit.

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

The vehicle was impounded after an employee allowed an acquaintance, who was a suspended driver, to drive it.

The Tribunal found that while the impoundment caused inconvenience and extra costs, the company had alternatives available, such as courier services and other company vehicles.

As the legal test for exceptional hardship requires demonstrating no alternative to the impounded vehicle, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by checking the employee's abstract upon hiring and claimed exceptional hardship due to the need to outsource towing work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the due diligence claim as the Ministry abstract showed active suspensions.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship because the company successfully outsourced the work, demonstrating an alternative to the impounded vehicle existed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant filed her appeal three days late and brought a motion for an extension of time, which the Tribunal granted.

On the merits, the appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to commute 45 km to work.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had successfully arranged alternative transportation with family and co-workers, and therefore failed to meet the legal test for exceptional hardship under the Highway Traffic Act and its regulations.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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 to his business.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's employee, whose licence was suspended for an alcohol-related offence, was caught driving it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had a reasonable alternative as he owned a second vehicle that allowed him to maintain his business.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship as defined by the regulation, and confirmed the 45-day 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 cousin was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives for transportation to his university classes and employment.

The Tribunal concluded that the inconvenience and financial burden did not meet the strict regulatory criteria for exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's husband, whose licence was suspended for life, was caught driving it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had obtained rides from family, friends, and co-workers.

Furthermore, the financial impact did not meet the regulatory definition of being immediate, significant, and lasting.

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 loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed an acquaintance, whose licence was suspended for impaired driving, to drive it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship, as she had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as getting rides, taking taxis, or walking to work.

The Tribunal confirmed the impoundment.

The Appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse their registrations as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Registrar alleged the Appellants operated as unregistered dealers ('curbsiders'), failed to provide vehicle history disclosures to vulnerable consumers, and forged signatures on sales documents.

The Tribunal found the Appellants' evidence lacked credibility and that they had engaged in serious derelictions of their responsibilities under the Act, including selling vehicles without disclosure and forging a colleague's signature.

The Tribunal concluded the Appellants' past conduct provided reasonable grounds for belief that they would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant lent it to a friend who was driving with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had a reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, as he owned a second vehicle.

Furthermore, the financial burden of the impoundment fees did not meet the regulatory definition of an immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after it was driven by a suspended driver.

She argued she exercised due diligence by asking the driver if he had a licence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her medical conditions and need to transport her autistic children.

The Tribunal found she did not exercise due diligence because she failed to physically check the driver's licence.

However, the Tribunal ordered the vehicle released on the basis of exceptional hardship, finding that the appellant had no reasonable alternative transportation and the impoundment posed a threat to her health and her children's well-being.

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

The vehicle, a specialized refrigerated van used to transport fresh fish, was impounded after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative vehicle available to comply with food safety regulations and that the business was suffering an immediate and significant financial loss of $12,000 per week.

Concluding that the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship, the Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

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

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by relying on its insurance broker to verify licences, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the licence itself, and that renting a replacement vehicle demonstrated a reasonable alternative existed, negating the exceptional hardship claim.

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 her husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had rented a vehicle and had access to public transit, meaning a reasonable alternative existed.

The Tribunal concluded that the financial cost of the rental and impound fees did not meet the regulatory threshold for exceptional hardship.

The appellant corporation applied for a liquor sales licence for its barbershop.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the application because one of the two principal shareholders had a lengthy criminal record involving violence and drug trafficking, and had failed to disclose three convictions on the application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the Registrar's proposal, finding that the shareholder's past conduct and failure to fully disclose his criminal record afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order refusing his registration as a gaming supplier (Seller) under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The Registrar based the refusal on the Appellant's past criminal convictions, primarily for driving offences and breaches of court orders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant had demonstrated a sufficient period of good conduct, had been honest and forthright during the application process, and had successfully rehabilitated his lifestyle.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to register the Appellant subject to a condition that he report any new charges until his driving prohibition expires in 2019.

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 the appellant's boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had purchased an alternative vehicle shortly after the impoundment and maintained her full-time employment.

As an alternative vehicle was available and the financial loss was not immediate, significant, and lasting, the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship were not met.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the basis of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after a suspended driver, whom the appellant had briefly encountered, drove the vehicle without her permission while she was experiencing a panic attack.

The appellant, who suffers from severe medical conditions and lives on a very limited income, relied on the vehicle for medical appointments and daily needs.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative transportation and that the loss of the vehicle posed a threat to her health.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

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 lent it to her boyfriend, who was an unlicensed and suspended driver.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to file the appeal but dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the appellant failed to prove she had no alternative transportation or that she suffered an immediate, significant, and lasting loss.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her common-law partner drove it while his licence was suspended.

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant had explicitly forbidden her partner from driving the vehicle following a previous incident, and that he took it without her knowledge or consent.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act and ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.