Joanne E. Foot

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

Her vehicle was impounded after her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as getting rides from colleagues and walking to local stores, and therefore failed to meet the legal test for exceptional hardship.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles following a medical condition report indicating substance use disorder and a psychiatric illness.

The appellant appealed the suspension.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant did not suffer from a psychiatric disorder, but did suffer from moderate alcohol use disorder.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the Registrar failed to establish that the appellant's alcohol use disorder was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, nor was there evidence that he was addicted to alcohol.

The Tribunal set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's refusal to issue him a commercial driver's licence due to his failure to meet minimum vision standards.

The Tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was an 'applicant' under section 32(5)(a) rather than a 'holder' under section 32(5)(b), and that the regulations only prescribe a right of appeal for decisions made under section 32(5)(b)(i).

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after his son's friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant did not check the driver's licence of the person actually driving the vehicle, and the family had alternative transportation options, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The appellant child care centre appealed the Director's decision to downgrade its licence to a provisional licence under the Child Care and Early Years Act, 2014.

The downgrade followed the appellant's failure to comply with a Public Health work order requiring repairs to the kitchen area.

The appellant argued the Director lacked authority to issue the provisional licence and that the downgrade negatively impacted its ability to secure municipal funding for the repairs.

The Tribunal found that the Director was properly authorized, that the failure to comply with the work order constituted sufficient grounds for the downgrade, and that the availability of municipal funding was irrelevant to the Director's decision.

The appeal was dismissed and the provisional licence was continued.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

Following case conferences, the parties reached a settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order vacating the scheduled hearing dates and directing that the appellant be registered as a salesperson subject to terms and conditions agreed upon in writing by the parties.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension followed two incidents of erratic driving where the appellant admitted to smoking heroin prior to driving.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffered from a heroin addiction that significantly interfered with his ability to drive safely, noting his short period of abstinence, lack of remorse, and history of driving after drug use.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a real estate broker.

The appellant had previously been registered but voluntarily relinquished his registration after his brokerage went bankrupt and he was convicted of multiple offences under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, including breach of trust for misusing trust funds.

The Tribunal found that the appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible, that his past conduct demonstrated a lack of integrity and honesty, and that he had made false statements on past applications.

The Tribunal concluded that conditions on registration were inappropriate given the fundamental lack of honesty demonstrated by the misuse of trust funds.

The Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant appealed the suspension of her driver's licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles following a stroke that resulted in cognitive impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed medical reports and functional driving assessments which indicated the appellant had skill deficits and was unable to integrate safe driving strategies.

The Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a cognitive impairment likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

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

Her husband was caught driving the vehicle while his licence was suspended for Criminal Code convictions.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had utilized several alternative methods of transportation during the impoundment period, including purchasing uncertified cars, using public transit, and receiving assistance from family and friends.

Consequently, the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the suspension of his driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar suspended the licence after the appellant, who has Type 1 diabetes, suffered an extreme hypoglycemic event while asleep.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had re-established stable glycemic control, was highly knowledgeable about his condition, and maintained a healthy lifestyle.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not suffer from a physical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse their registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The individual appellant had previously pled guilty to assault with sexual connotations against a driving student and received a conditional discharge.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's misleading statements to the regulator regarding the assault, his blaming of the victim, and his persistent refusal to discuss the matter demonstrated a lack of honesty, integrity, and governability.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the registrations.

The appellant, a casino dealer, appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke his registration as a Class 2 gaming assistant under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The proposed revocation stemmed from an incident where the appellant pocketed approximately $2,000 found on the floor of another casino and left without reporting it, leading to a theft charge that was later withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's conduct, lack of credibility regarding his intention to return the money, and failure to demonstrate remorse or insight provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act with honesty, integrity, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposed order to revoke the registration.

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

The vehicle was impounded while being driven by the appellant's son, whose licence was suspended.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof to establish exceptional hardship and confirmed the impoundment.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Cancellation and Seizure issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles proposing to cancel its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) due to a poor safety record.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar had sufficient reason to believe the appellant would not operate commercial motor vehicles safely, citing numerous vehicle defects, convictions, and a failure to cooperate with inspections.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to cancel the CVOR.

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

Her son had taken her vehicle without permission and was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that although renting a vehicle to get to work was a financial burden, it constituted a reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle.

Therefore, the legal test for exceptional hardship was not met, and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant applied for registration as a salesperson and motor vehicle dealer, which the Registrar proposed to refuse.

The appellant missed the 15-day deadline to appeal the proposal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal and brought a motion to extend the time.

The respondent consented to the extension after hearing the circumstances.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent, extending the time to file the appeal and scheduling a case conference.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after it was driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant argued the vehicle was taken without her consent by a friend who refused to return her keys at a bar, and that she had reported it stolen when it was not returned as agreed.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was taken without the appellant's consent and was therefore stolen at the time of impoundment.

The Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a real estate broker based on past conduct.

Following a case conference, the parties reached a settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to suspend the appellant's registration for 28 weeks instead of revoking it, and attached conditions to his registration for five years, including a prohibition on acting as a broker of record and restrictions on mortgage referrals.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002 to refuse registration.

Following case conferences, the parties reached a settlement and requested that the minutes of settlement be incorporated into a consent order.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered that the proceedings be disposed of without a hearing, granting registration to the appellant as a general dealer and salesperson subject to extensive terms and conditions regarding compliance, premises, books and records, disclosure, and financial responsibility.