Jeffery Campbell

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by her son while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had access to a rental vehicle, which constituted an alternative to the impounded vehicle.

As an alternative existed, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically alcohol and substance use disorders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that medical reports confirmed the diagnoses and that the appellant had only been abstinent for three months, falling short of the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers' twelve-month requirement.

The Tribunal concluded the conditions were likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the suspension.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his all-terrain vehicle, which was seized after his son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship to his son and stepdaughter, who live off the grid and use the vehicle for property maintenance.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while there was no reasonable alternative to the specialized vehicle, the appellant failed to prove its loss would create a risk to health or safety, or cause immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss to a person ordinarily transported by it.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship as he required the vehicle to commute to his job as a truck driver and could not afford alternative transportation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative to the use of his vehicle and that continued impoundment would result in immediate, significant, and enduring economic and employment hardship.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

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

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

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as getting rides from friends, hiring a driver, or staying with her mother closer to work.

The Tribunal also noted that because the appellant was the suspended driver at the time of impoundment, she was precluded from relying on financial or employment loss to establish exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 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 would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as she did not verify the driver's licence status at the time of the incident.

Furthermore, the appellant was precluded from claiming exceptional hardship due to a previous vehicle impoundment.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after he lent it to a co-worker whose licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because he did not ask to examine the driver's licence or verify its validity.

The Tribunal also found that the impoundment would not cause exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to three other household vehicles, as well as taxis, ride-sharing, and rental vehicles.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order under the Travel Industry Act.

At the hearing, the appellant consented to the extension of the suspension order and withdrew its appeal of the Notice of Proposal.

The Tribunal ordered the extension of the suspension order and closed the file.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the appellant and her partner lived in a rural area with no public transit, and the lack of a vehicle threatened the partner's employment and the health and safety of their newborn child.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after another driver operated it in violation of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative transportation and that the health and safety of her one-year-old daughter was at risk due to an inability to access medical care.

The appeal was granted and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to alternative transportation, including Uber, Uber Eats, and public transit, and therefore failed to meet the threshold requirement for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor 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 Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to alternative transportation, including public transit, Uber, and her sister's vehicle.

As reasonable alternatives existed, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship as defined by the regulation.

The appellant appealed the 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 had access to alternative transportation, specifically Uber and a rental vehicle, and therefore failed to establish exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment 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 stopped by police while driven by a mechanic whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as she had left it with the mechanic for repairs and he failed to return it despite numerous requests, depriving her of its use.

The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the mechanic intentionally deprived the appellant of the vehicle, meeting the definition of 'stolen' under the Act.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle, which occurred after his son was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant filed the appeal 18 days late and brought a motion to extend the time to file.

The Tribunal denied the motion to extend time, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, prejudice to the respondent, and no merit to the appeal.

On the merits, the Tribunal found no exceptional hardship because the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including friends to drive him and a second vehicle he chose not to use.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a registered career college, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its registration under the Ontario Career Colleges Act, 2005.

The Superintendent proposed revocation on the basis that the appellant failed to provide refunds to students after its Diagnostic Medical Sonography program was revoked and lost accreditation.

The Tribunal found that the appellant ignored written demands for refunds from students for over ten months, causing them financial and emotional distress.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's refusal to comply with the refund requirements of Ontario Regulation 415/06 demonstrated that it would not operate the college in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal declined to impose the appellant's proposed conditions and directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order (ITSO) issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

At the hearing, the appellants requested an adjournment to retain counsel and obtain a Farsi interpreter, and opposed the extension of the ITSOs.

The Tribunal found it lacked authority to extend the timeframe for considering the ITSO extension under the Act.

However, because the appellants' failure to secure an interpreter delayed the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal extended the ITSOs until the conclusion of the hearing pursuant to s. 10(4)(b) of the Act.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence and the Minister's decision to downgrade it to a Class G(Z).

The Registrar alleged the appellant fraudulently obtained his Class A licence through a bribery scheme involving driving examiners.

The Tribunal found the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the licence was obtained fraudulently, as the evidence consisted only of letters from the OPP Serious Fraud Office without supporting documentation or witness testimony.

The suspension was set aside.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the licence downgrade, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Highway Traffic Act to hear appeals of decisions made pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(ii).

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence and the Minister's subsequent decision to downgrade his licence to a Class G(Z).

The Registrar alleged the appellant fraudulently obtained his Class A licence through a bribery scheme involving a driving school and examiner.

The Tribunal found the Registrar failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the licence was obtained fraudulently, as the evidence presented was insufficient.

The Tribunal set aside the suspension but dismissed the appeal regarding the licence downgrade, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Highway Traffic Act to review decisions made under s. 32(5)(b)(ii).

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class A driver's licence for 90 days.

By the time of the hearing, the suspension period had ended and the appellant's licence was downgraded to a Class G(Z).

The tribunal found the issue of the suspension to be moot and confirmed the suspension.

The tribunal declined to hear the issue of the licence downgrade, ruling that it must be addressed in a separate appeal.