Jacqueline Castel

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 the appellant allowed her spouse to drive it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test for extending time and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the 15-day period, the 26-day delay was significant, the respondent would suffer prejudice, and the appeal lacked merit because the appellant admitted knowing the driver was unlicensed and had alternative transportation.

The motion was denied.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was impounded because it was driven by a person with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship as she is unemployed, has a five-month-old baby, and had to cancel a routine doctor's appointment due to lack of alternative transportation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, noting she was unemployed prior to the impoundment, had alternative arrangements for groceries, and her daughter's health was not threatened.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties resolved the issues in dispute and filed Minutes of Settlement requesting a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal substituted its opinion for that of the Registrar and ordered that the appellant's registration be subject to several conditions, including compliance with the Act, providing notice of changes, not being the final signatory on contracts, and providing police information checks.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was impounded because it was driven by a person with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative modes of transportation available, as a friend assisted with shopping and her boyfriend transported her son to school.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment order confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which was seized after being driven by an employee whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence and would suffer exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that merely observing the employee's licence months prior did not constitute due diligence.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because he had access to an alternative vehicle for his roofing business and did not demonstrate lasting financial loss.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after she allowed a stranger to test drive it, who was subsequently stopped by police and found to have a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternatives to the vehicle, such as walking to appointments and relying on friends for groceries, and therefore did not meet the criteria for exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as she did not closely inspect the driver's licence or verify its status despite red flags.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had alternative transportation options available.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her ex-husband was caught driving it while his Ontario licence was suspended for life.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence because she had seen his Quebec driver's licence in 2018 and noticed it in his wallet shortly before the impoundment.

The Tribunal found this did not constitute due diligence, as she failed to check the expiry date or confirm with the Ministry of Transportation whether he was legally permitted to drive in Ontario.

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 a friend whose licence was suspended.

The appellant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded ex parte and found that the appellant did not meet the onus of establishing exceptional hardship, as alternative modes of transportation such as public transit, taxis, and Uber were available in her city.

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, arguing the vehicle was stolen and the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded while the appellant was in Mexico, after he left it with a friend whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the friend did not intend to deprive the appellant of the vehicle and did not take it fraudulently.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant was out of the country during the 45-day impoundment period and only experienced inconvenience upon his return.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its vehicle, which was seized after being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment should be set aside on the grounds of due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because it did not verify the driver's licence status before providing access to the vehicle.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim, noting that the appellant owned two other vehicles that could serve as alternatives.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after being driven by her boyfriend whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by asking the driver if he had a valid licence, and claimed exceptional hardship as a single mother needing the vehicle for work.

The Tribunal found that simply asking the driver did not constitute due diligence, and that exceptional hardship was not established because alternative transportation was available.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order confirmed.

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

She sought reimbursement of impoundment fees, arguing the vehicle was stolen by the driver and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove the vehicle was taken without consent or with fraudulent intent, and that she had alternative modes of transportation available, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Licensing as a Funeral Director.

The appellant filed an incomplete notice of appeal five days late and did not complete the filing until five months later, citing his father's health issues.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test for extending time and found that the delay was significant, the explanation did not cover the relevant period, and the appeal lacked merit given the appellant's admission to misappropriating consumer funds.

The motion was denied.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her spouse drove it while his licence was suspended under the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen by her spouse and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the spouse taking the keys without permission did not meet the legal threshold for theft, and that the appellant did not suffer exceptional hardship because she had access to alternative transportation, including public transit and a rental car.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to revoke his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties resolved the issues in dispute and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal substituted its opinion for that of the Registrar and ordered that the appellant's registration be maintained subject to several conditions, including that he only be employed by a registered franchise dealer for two years and not act as a controlling mind or manager of a motor vehicle dealer during that period.

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

The appellant, an 87-year-old who no longer drives, argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as her family members had their own vehicles and were able to assist her with transportation and errands during the impoundment period.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a 45-day motor vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's roommate, a suspended driver, operated it.

The appellant missed the 15-day appeal deadline by over two months and did not attend the teleconference motion hearing.

Applying the four-factor test for extending time, the Tribunal found 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, as the appellant had an alternative vehicle and the vehicle was not stolen.

The motion was denied.

The applicant applied under s. 14(2) of the Liquor Licence Act to remove a condition from its liquor licence that restricted the sale and service of alcohol indoors after 11 p.m.

The condition had been imposed four years prior based on a consent agreement between the previous licensee and the City of Toronto.

At a case conference, the parties agreed that there had been a change in circumstances, and the City of Toronto confirmed it had no objection to the removal.

The Tribunal found a change in circumstances and ordered the condition removed on consent.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's daughter allowed a suspended driver to operate it.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the impounding officer failed to forward notice to the Registrar and ordered an early release.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction because the officer had the legal authority to impound the vehicle at the time.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, a requirement for proving exceptional hardship.