Jan Dymond

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her commercial snow-plowing vehicle, arguing exceptional hardship.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove that no alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, as she had successfully subcontracted the snow-plowing work and had access to other vehicles for personal use.

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 Tribunal granted an extension of time to file the appeal, finding the justice of the case warranted it due to delays in notifying the appellant of her appeal rights.

However, the appeal was dismissed on the merits.

The appellant failed to establish she exercised due diligence to ensure the driver's licence was valid, as no evidence of her steps was presented.

She also failed to prove exceptional hardship, as she owned a second vehicle and did not demonstrate it was unavailable.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after it was stopped while being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by asking the driver if he had a valid licence and viewing it when he first borrowed the vehicle four weeks prior.

The Tribunal found the appellant took reasonable care and actions, establishing due diligence on a balance of probabilities.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative transportation to his employment, as public transit added significant commute time and ride-shares were cost-prohibitive.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment posed a real risk of immediate, significant, and lasting loss of employment, establishing exceptional hardship, and ordered the vehicle's release.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its farm vehicle under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after an employee drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen because the employee did not have consent to drive it.

The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence credible, noting the employee was prohibited from driving the vehicle and took it without permission, intending to temporarily deprive the owner of it.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen and ordered its release.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a third party whose licence was suspended due to a prescribed criminal conviction.

At the hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal after considering the permitted grounds for appeal under section 50.2 of the Act.

The Tribunal closed the file.

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

The vehicle was impounded because the driver was operating it without an ignition interlock device, contrary to her licence conditions.

The Tribunal found that the driver was subject to the condition, the appellant failed to exercise due diligence to determine the driver's licence status, and the impoundment would not cause exceptional hardship as an alternative vehicle was available.

The impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which occurred when her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued that the vehicle was stolen at the time of the impoundment, as her son had lied to her about enlisting a third party to drive the vehicle in order to use it without her permission.

The Tribunal found that the son took the vehicle without consent with the intent to deprive the appellant of it temporarily, meeting the legal definition of a stolen vehicle.

The appeal was granted and the vehicle was ordered released.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove she had no alternative vehicle available, as she had access to an employer-provided vehicle for work and essential tasks.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was taken without her consent and was therefore stolen.

The Tribunal found that while the vehicle was taken without consent, the appellant failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent her son from accessing the keys and did not believe he intended to deprive her of the vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was not stolen and confirmed the impoundment order.

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as her husband took the keys from her closet without her consent while she was caring for their children.

The Tribunal accepted her credible testimony that she had explicitly forbidden him from driving the vehicle and had no reason to expect he would take it.

Applying the definition from Marshall, the Tribunal found the vehicle was taken without consent with the intent to temporarily deprive the owner 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 after police stopped it and found the driver operating it without a valid licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment, as his daughter had taken it to a detailing business and an employee drove it outside business hours without permission.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of the Act, as the driver intended to deprive the owner of its use.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended he should be removed from the MIG due to a concussion, chronic pain, psychological impairments including PTSD, and a pre-existing medical condition.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support a concussion, chronic pain under the AMA Guides, or accident-related psychological impairments.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for psychological and physiotherapy services were dismissed, along with claims for a special award and interest.

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 for removal from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that his pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG, and assigned no weight to the applicant's expert reports regarding psychological issues and chronic pain because they failed to consider an intervening accident.

The application was dismissed.