Jacqueline Castel

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

She argued that she exercised due diligence in verifying his licence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to take all reasonable steps to confirm the licence status immediately before allowing him to drive.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no exceptional hardship because the appellant had access to alternative transportation, specifically the school bus she drove for work.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a friend with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including a motorcycle, rides from co-workers, and his wife's vehicle.

As such, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to suspend their condominium management provider licence and transitional general licence.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement, which required the appellants to wind down their business, transition clients, and voluntarily cancel their licence, while allowing the individual appellant to apply for a limited licence subject to strict conditions.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by his brother, whose licence was suspended.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to verify his brother's licence status and that he had alternative modes of transportation 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 her fiancé drove it while his licence was suspended under the Criminal Code.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because there were alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as relying on family members or renting a vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after she allowed her grandson's father to drive it while his licence was suspended.

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to transport her grandson, commute to work, and assist her elderly mother.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had successfully relied on friends and family for transportation, meaning there were alternatives to the impounded vehicle and exceptional hardship was not established.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after he was caught driving while his licence was suspended due to a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal approximately four weeks after the 15-day deadline had expired.

He brought a motion to extend the time to appeal, citing his spouse's pregnancy and the birth of their child as reasons for the delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and denied the motion, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, significant delay, prejudice to the respondent, and no reasonable chance of success on the merits since the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the driver, who was staying at the appellant's home, was arrested for impaired driving.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen within the meaning of the Act, as there was no evidence the driver intended to deprive the appellant of the vehicle.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant was able to use taxis for her business and did not require the vehicle for basic needs.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the driver's licence was not suspended at the time and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was driving the vehicle while her licence was suspended for a Criminal Code offence.

The Tribunal also held that the exceptional hardship ground was unavailable because the appellant's vehicle had been previously impounded.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was impounded because her driver's licence was suspended under the Criminal Code.

She sought the release of the vehicle on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including two other vehicles she owned and the use of a bicycle for transportation to work.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded because the driver was subject to an ignition interlock condition and the vehicle lacked the device.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she was able to rely on friends, family, and taxis for transportation and childcare.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed his former girlfriend, whose licence was suspended, to drive it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because he had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including transportation assistance from his mother.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her vehicle under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after her ex-boyfriend was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time, claiming she handed over the keys under duress due to past abuse.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen within the meaning of the Act, noting the appellant was in the passenger seat, they were going to get food, and she did not appear to be under duress when detained.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment order confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by her son, who was subject to an ignition interlock condition, without the required device.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had alternative transportation options available through her husband and daughter.

The appellants appealed the Registrar's proposal to revoke their registrations under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered the termination of the dealer's registration and imposed a five-year conditional registration on the individual registrant as a salesperson, along with requirements to complete a certification course and pay outstanding restitution for a prior Consumer Protection Act conviction.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded because it lacked an ignition interlock device, contrary to a condition on the driver's licence.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal four days after the 15-day deadline and failed to file a Notice of Motion for an extension of time or attend the scheduled teleconference motion hearing.

The Tribunal considered the merits of the motion in the appellant's absence and found that the justice of the case did not warrant an extension, as there was no evidence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the timeline, prejudice to the respondent existed, and the appeal lacked a reasonable chance of success.

The motion to extend the time to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motorized RV, which he was driving while his licence was suspended under the Criminal Code.

The appellant, a 65-year-old Elder and cancer survivor, used the RV as his sole residence and was rendered homeless by the impoundment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the impoundment posed a threat to the appellant's health and safety, particularly during the winter and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship and ordered the release of the vehicle.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by her partner, whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as taxis, rides from her mother, and walking for errands.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle had been stolen at the time it was impounded.

The vehicle was driven by the appellant's ex-spouse, whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence regarding the alleged theft to be unreliable and inconsistent, while accepting the police officer's evidence that the vehicle had not been reported stolen and the driver had prior access to it.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 90 days after he was caught driving while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

He filed an appeal of the impoundment approximately two months after the 15-day deadline had passed.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant, the respondent would be prejudiced, and the appeal lacked merit because the stay of his driving prohibition was not retroactive to the date of the impoundment.

The motion to extend the time was denied.