Geneviève Blais

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, a suspended driver, drove it and was stopped by police.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative means of transportation, such as public transit, walking, and cycling, to get to her night shift job.

As an alternative existed, the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen by his daughter's boyfriend (a suspended driver) and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant's evidence regarding the alleged theft lacked credibility and contradicted police testimony, concluding there was implied consent for the suspended driver to use the vehicle.

The Tribunal also dismissed the exceptional hardship claim, finding the appellant had access to an alternative vehicle and public transportation, and failed to prove an immediate, significant, and lasting loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship and that the vehicle was stolen by her husband, a suspended driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the vehicle was stolen, as the appellant left the keys readily accessible despite knowing her husband's history of driving violations.

The Tribunal also dismissed the exceptional hardship claim, noting the appellant had rented an alternative vehicle and suffered no loss of income.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove she had no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she was out of the country for most of the impoundment period and had assistance from her daughter when home.

The Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after being driven by his suspended son.

The appellant filed an appeal 25 days after the statutory 15-day deadline expired, and brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed time period, the delay was significant, and granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the Registrar given the accrued impoundment costs.

L'appelante a interjeté appel de la mise en fourrière de 45 jours de son véhicule en vertu du Code de la route, alléguant que la perte du véhicule lui causerait un préjudice excessif.

Le véhicule avait été intercepté alors qu'il était conduit par un ami de l'appelante, dont le permis était suspendu à la suite d'une condamnation en vertu du Code criminel.

L'appelante a fait valoir qu'elle avait besoin du véhicule pour son travail et pour visiter sa famille.

Le Tribunal a rejeté l'appel, concluant que l'appelante disposait d'autres modes de transport, tels que le transport en commun et l'aide de sa parenté, et qu'elle n'avait pas prouvé de perte financière significative ou durable.

La mise en fourrière de 45 jours a été confirmée.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's grandson, a suspended driver, was stopped by police while driving it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was precluded from appealing on the grounds of exceptional hardship under section 50.2(4) of the Act because a vehicle owned by her had been previously impounded on three occasions.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles cancelling its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificate and seizing its plates due to a poor safety record.

The appellant's operations manager had a history of managing other companies with cancelled or refused CVORs and outstanding fines.

Despite the appellant's recent hiring of a safety consultant, the Tribunal found the appellant had a pattern of poor safety and little demonstrated action to improve.

The Tribunal concluded there was reason to believe the appellant would not operate safely and ordered the Registrar to carry out the cancellation and seizure.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for life.

She argued that she exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish due diligence because she denied her husband was driving at all, rather than showing she took reasonable steps to ensure he had a valid licence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to transportation alternatives and the legislation precludes considering mere inconvenience or financial loss.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after allowing a suspended driver to operate it.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by asking the driver if she had a valid licence and claimed exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for her employment as a nurse practitioner.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that merely accepting the driver's word did not constitute due diligence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternative transportation options, including carpooling and renting a vehicle, and earned a sufficient income to mitigate the financial impact.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after her husband drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant filed an appeal 18 days after the statutory deadline and brought a motion to extend the time to file.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the appellant failed to establish a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant, and the proposed grounds of appeal (due diligence and exceptional hardship) lacked merit.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after it was driven by her son, whose licence was suspended.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the son took the vehicle keys while the appellant was sleeping, despite her express prohibition against him driving.

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

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days, alleging that the establishment permitted two underage females to consume liquor and failed to inspect their identification.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the evidence of the underage patron to be inconsistent and not credible.

Furthermore, the inspectors failed to verify whether the liquid served was alcohol.

The Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal.

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 appellant, who was the suspended driver at the time of the impoundment, claimed financial hardship because he could not use the vehicle for his roofing business.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that under O. Reg. 631/98, financial loss cannot be considered if the impact of the loss is primarily on the suspended driver or results from a loss by the suspended driver.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after her common-law husband drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant, who suffers from chronic pain and requires weekly medical treatments, demonstrated that she had no alternative transportation to attend her medical appointments, which were located 17 to 80 kilometres away.

The Tribunal found that the loss of the vehicle presented a threat to her health and safety, satisfying the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

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

The Appellants appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying their claim for financial loss compensation under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Appellants had entered into a contract with a builder for a custom home, but construction ceased and the contract was terminated.

The Appellants claimed they paid more than the value of the work and materials supplied, alleging defective and incomplete work.

The Tribunal found the evidence of the builder's sub-trades to be the most reliable, establishing that the value of the work and materials supplied exceeded the $136,760.00 paid by the Appellants.

The Tribunal gave limited weight to the Appellants' expert witness, who had not visited the site.

The appeal was dismissed and Tarion was directed to deny the claim in full.

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

The appellant had allowed a friend to drive her vehicle, assuming he had a valid licence because she had seen him drive previously and knew he operated heavy equipment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that assuming a driver has a valid licence without taking steps to verify it does not constitute due diligence.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The Appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days because he was driving while suspended due to a Canada-wide prohibition order from Nova Scotia.

He filed an appeal 23 days after the 15-day statutory deadline expired.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed his motion for an extension of time, finding he lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant, and the appeal lacked merit because he was the suspended driver and could not claim exceptional hardship under the regulation.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant lent it to the father of her child, who was a suspended driver.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had leased a replacement vehicle and therefore failed to demonstrate that no alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an employee whose licence was suspended for life.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to verify the employee's licence despite knowing he might drive company vehicles, and that the business had alternatives available, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.