Jan Dymond

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued they exercised due diligence in attempting to determine the driver was properly licensed, noting the driver frequently drove other vehicles and presented a licence for proof of age without issue.

The Tribunal found the appellant established due diligence on a balance of probabilities, as it was reasonable to believe the driver held a valid licence under the circumstances.

The Registrar was ordered to release the impounded vehicle.

The appellant towing company brought a motion for a stay of a cancellation order issued by the Director of Towing and Vehicle Storage Standards pending its appeal.

The Director had cancelled the appellant's certificates based on allegations of staged collisions and record-keeping deficiencies.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found there was a serious issue to be tried, the appellant would suffer irreparable harm including potential business collapse if the stay was not granted, and the balance of convenience favoured the appellant given its implementation of new compliance protocols.

The motion for a stay was granted.

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

The vehicle was impounded because the appellant was driving while her licence was suspended.

The Tribunal first found that the appellant, as a lessee, was a beneficial owner entitled to appeal.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the impoundment was due to a suspended licence rather than an ignition interlock device violation, and that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant was caught driving while her licence was suspended for a criminal conviction.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that she had considered all reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she and her family were able to use ride-share services, grocery delivery, and public transit to meet their needs.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an individual subject to an ignition interlock device condition, while the vehicle was not equipped with one.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove the vehicle was stolen, as she had relinquished oversight to her daughter and could not establish the driver's intent.

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

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her appeal of a 45-day vehicle impoundment.

The original appeal was dismissed because the appellant was not the registered owner and failed to produce a power of attorney at the hearing.

On reconsideration, the appellant submitted a power of attorney as new evidence under Rule 18.2(c).

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that while the power of attorney would have affected the result, the appellant failed to establish that it could not have been obtained prior to the original hearing.

The appellant appealed a 90-day driver's licence suspension.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the appellant's suspension was alcohol-related and he appealed under grounds for drug-related suspensions.

The appellant brought a cross-motion to exclude the respondent's agents due to alleged bias.

The Tribunal dismissed both motions.

It held that the appellant had the right to select his grounds of appeal and attempt to prove them at a hearing.

It also held that it lacked authority to remove a party's chosen representative on the basis of bias against the opposing party.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she was able to borrow her parents' vehicle and use other household vehicles to maintain her employment and family needs.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine the driver's licence status.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony persuasive, noting she had a reasonable belief the licence was valid because it had been accepted by a utility provider and a rental company, and a police officer had previously directed the driver to drive her children.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant exercised due diligence and ordered the release of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend their driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The Registrar relied on a medical report diagnosing the appellant with severe cannabis use disorder.

The appellant disputed the severity of the disorder and argued their cannabis use did not impair their driving.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence persuasive and concluded the appellant lacked sufficient insight into their condition.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence, finding the condition likely to significantly interfere with the ability to drive safely.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of a motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal because the appellant was not the registered owner of the vehicle.

The appellant's representative claimed the appellant had a power of attorney for the owner but was unable to produce it.

The Tribunal found that only the registered owner has the right to appeal under section 50.2(1) of the Act.

As the appellant was not the owner, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to transport her common-law partner's mother to medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that she had considered and inquired into every reasonable alternative option, such as public transit, accessible taxis, or visiting health care services, to mitigate the impact of the impoundment.

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

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as she had hidden the key fob and explicitly forbidden her son from driving it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant took reasonable steps to prevent access and that the vehicle was taken without consent with the intent to temporarily deprive her of it.

The appeal was granted and the vehicle ordered released.

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

The vehicle was impounded while being test-driven by an employee of a licensed automotive repair facility where the appellant had left it for repairs.

The employee's driver's licence was suspended at the time.

The Tribunal found that the appellant exercised due diligence, as he entrusted his vehicle to a reputable repair facility and could not have known which employee would test-drive it days later.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle ordered released.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship as she was an American resident visiting Ontario and the lack of a vehicle prevented her from returning to the U.S. for work, resulting in the termination of her employment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle and that the loss of employment constituted an immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle, which occurred after a driver operated it while suspended for a criminal conviction.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the vehicle was uniquely equipped for its foam insulation business and could not be replaced.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle and that its loss resulted in immediate, significant, and lasting financial hardship to the business owners.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued he suffered from chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence did not support a diagnosis of chronic pain with functional impairment, noting the applicant failed to meet the criteria under the AMA Guides.

As the injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limits were exhausted, the application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

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

The vehicle was impounded because the driver's licence was subject to an ignition interlock device condition, but the vehicle was not equipped with one.

The appellant argued he was not driving the vehicle at the time of impoundment and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship regarding the transportation of his daughter.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was not the driver, and failed to demonstrate that every reasonable alternative option for transportation had been considered to establish exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade their Class A commercial driver's licence to a Class G licence due to a medical condition.

The appellant had experienced two nocturnal seizures and was diagnosed with epilepsy.

While the appellant was compliant with medication and had been seizure-free for nine months, the Tribunal applied the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, which require a five-year seizure-free period for commercial drivers.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's medical condition was likely to significantly interfere with their ability to safely drive a Class A vehicle and confirmed the Minister's decision.

The appellant appealed the 180-day impoundment of its motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after an employee was caught driving while suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had two previous vehicle impoundments within the prescribed two-year period.

Under section 50.2(4) of the Act, the exceptional hardship ground of appeal is not available if there was a previous impoundment.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.