Jacqueline Castel

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that a validly licensed employee was driving and the suspended driver was merely a passenger.

Two independent witnesses testified they saw the suspended driver operating the vehicle and called police due to suspected impairment.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence inconsistent and lacking credibility, preferring the independent witnesses' testimony.

The Tribunal concluded the suspended driver did operate the vehicle and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after being driven without her consent by a mechanic whose licence was suspended.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 15 days late because she was not provided with the Notice of Suspension and Impoundment, due to a police officer's failure to enter the impoundment into the system.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the four-factor test for extending time and found that the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was not her fault, there was no prejudice to the respondent, and the appeal had a reasonable chance of success.

The motion to extend the time to appeal was granted.

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

Her vehicle was impounded after her roommate, a disqualified driver, drove it without permission.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had access to alternative transportation, including public transit, taxis, and ride-sharing services, and her employer allowed her to work from home.

As alternatives existed, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed an acquaintance to drive it, who was subsequently stopped for impaired driving.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to alternative transportation through family, friends, and public transit, and therefore failed to meet the regulatory criteria for exceptional hardship.

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

The vehicle was impounded after police stopped it and found it was being driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant had loaned the vehicle to her son, who was in the passenger seat at the time of the stop, but she did not know the driver and had not given him permission to drive.

The Tribunal found there was insufficient evidence to establish the due diligence defence under s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act, as the appellant provided no evidence regarding how the suspended driver came to be driving or what efforts her son made to verify the driver's licence status.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions for insubordination and neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

After the appeal was heard but before a decision was rendered, the appellant retired from the police service.

The Commission held that pursuant to section 90(1) of the Police Services Act, it lost jurisdiction over the matter once the appellant ceased to be a police officer.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty under the Police Services Act.

The charge arose from his failure to properly supervise a sudden death investigation, including failing to secure the scene, preserve evidence, and call specialized units after concluding prematurely that a motor vehicle was not involved.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Hearing Officer's factual findings and confirmed the conviction, finding clear and convincing evidence that the appellant's conduct crossed the line from a performance issue to misconduct.

The appellant, a police sergeant, appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of insubordination and discreditable conduct for speaking at a conference in favour of cannabis legalization while off-duty, contrary to a direct order.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the insubordination conviction, finding the order was lawful under section 49(1) of the Police Services Act.

However, the Commission revoked the discreditable conduct conviction, ruling that the Hearing Officer erred by applying a subjective test rather than an objective reasonable person test to assess whether the conduct was likely to bring discredit upon the police force.

The appellants appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle after their son allowed an acquaintance, whose licence was suspended, to drive it.

The appellants argued their son exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the son did not exercise due diligence because he failed to ask to see the driver's licence.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellants had a second vehicle and access to public transportation.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct.

The conviction arose from a sarcastic internal report the appellant wrote criticizing an order to conduct a missing person investigation, which he believed was a conflict of interest.

The Commission found no reasonable apprehension of bias by the Hearing Officer.

However, the Commission concluded that the Hearing Officer's finding of discreditable conduct was unreasonable, as the appellant's conduct should have been treated as a performance issue rather than misconduct.

The conviction was revoked.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after an apprentice at an auto repair shop drove it without permission while his licence was suspended.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under s. 50.2(3)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen.

The Tribunal found that taking a vehicle without consent for a joyride constitutes "stolen" under the Act, even if the driver intended to return it.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct and insubordination arising from an incident where he allegedly attended a police disciplinary hearing under the influence of alcohol and refused an order to take a breath test.

The Hearing Officer's decision was premised on the finding that the appellant was on duty at the time.

The Commission found that the evidence did not reasonably support the conclusion that the appellant was on duty, as he had been granted an 'Association day' and was not explicitly ordered to return to work.

The Commission revoked the findings of guilt and ordered a new hearing.

Two police officers appealed their disciplinary convictions for Unlawful or Unnecessary Arrest and Discreditable Conduct, as well as the penalties imposed.

The officers had entered a residence without a warrant to investigate a noise complaint and arrested a youth who was recording them.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the unlawful arrest convictions, finding no hot pursuit justified the warrantless entry.

However, the Commission overturned the discreditable conduct conviction against one officer, finding the hearing officer failed to apply the objective reasonable person test to her use of mild profanity.

The penalties were varied from forfeiture of hours to reprimands and training to align with similar cases.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of insubordination, discreditable conduct, and deceit, and the resulting penalty of an 18-month demotion.

The charges arose from the appellant's failure to assist two members of the public with criminal record checks outside regular business hours, contrary to orders, and his subsequent deceit to a supervisor.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission upheld the findings of misconduct, finding the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments reasonable.

However, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred by punishing the appellant twice for the same actions (insubordination and discreditable conduct) and failing to apply the Kienapple principle.

The penalty was varied from an 18-month demotion to a forfeiture of 40 hours.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, filing the appeal five days late.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to appeal, finding a bona fide intention to appeal and minimal prejudice to the Ministry.

On the merits, the appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove she had no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she did not have a G2 licence, her spouse's licence was suspended, and she had relied on public transportation for most of her life.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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 son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative to the impounded vehicle existed, as her husband owned a pickup truck that could be used for her employment and errands.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the vehicle was taken without permission, as the appellant had previously allowed her boyfriend to drive it despite knowing his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal also rejected the exceptional hardship claim because the appellant owned a second vehicle and failed to demonstrate an immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his pickup truck under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing exceptional hardship.

The appellant was caught driving the vehicle while his licence was suspended for dangerous driving.

His spouse, acting as agent, argued the truck was essential for their farm operations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that no alternative existed for the impounded vehicle, as they had not fully explored renting a truck or relying on neighbours.

Furthermore, any financial loss would be borne by the suspended driver, which precludes a finding of exceptional hardship under the regulations.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued an Order of Monetary Penalty of $2,000 against the appellant establishment for allegedly exceeding its licensed capacity by 10 patrons.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the inspector's evidence and noted that only one count was performed, which was not a precise 'count-out'.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the establishment was over capacity.

The monetary penalty was set aside.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to file an appeal of an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing.

The penalty was imposed for failing to provide required information in advance of a catered event.

The Tribunal applied the four factors from Manuel v. Registrar and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was excessive, and the appellant failed to demonstrate merit to the appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.