Laura Hodgson

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

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she had no alternative transportation to attend her college and her regular Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had explored all reasonable alternatives and that the inability to attend her rehabilitation meetings posed a serious threat to her mental health and recovery.

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

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was towed by police for obstruction.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that it only has jurisdiction to hear appeals of impoundments made under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act.

Because the vehicle was towed for obstruction and there was no record of a section 55.1 impoundment, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of the impoundment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's son took the vehicle keys from her purse while she was sleeping, without her consent, and with the intent to temporarily deprive her of the vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of the Act and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle and reimburse the towing and impound charges.

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

She argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to transport her husband and brother-in-law to medical appointments and for groceries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish that no alternative transportation was available, as she owned a second vehicle used by her son and had not inquired into renting a vehicle.

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

The appellant filed her notice of appeal one day late due to technical issues and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the extension, finding a bona fide intention to appeal and no prejudice to the respondent.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the appellant had no alternative transportation and required the vehicle to attend medical appointments following recent surgeries.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's order cancelling its CVOR certificate due to alleged affiliation with a cancelled carrier.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and the cancelled carrier were not 'related' under the Highway Traffic Act, as there was no shared control or ownership, despite the appellant hiring former drivers and receiving transferred vehicles.

However, the Tribunal found reason to believe the appellant would not operate safely based on 'other relevant information,' specifically the appellant's efforts to obscure its connections to the cancelled carrier and failure to provide requested documentation.

The Tribunal varied the order, reinstating the CVOR with a condition limiting the appellant's fleet to one vehicle for one year.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to extend his ignition interlock condition by six months due to a reported performance failure.

The Minister brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the decision to extend the interlock condition was made under O. Reg. 287/08, not under section 32(5)(b)(i) of the Highway Traffic Act.

As the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear appeals explicitly assigned to it by statute or regulation, and decisions under O. Reg. 287/08 are not appealable under section 50(1) of the Act, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an extension of time to file an appeal from a Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The statutory 15-day appeal period expired on November 3, 2025, and the appeal was filed 74 days late on January 16, 2026.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found that despite the significant delay caused by the appellant's former counsel, the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, there was minimal prejudice to the Registrar, and the appeal had some merit given the sparse particulars of alleged academic misconduct in the Notice of Proposal.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse its registration as a motor vehicle dealer.

The Registrar argued that the sole director's husband was an 'interested person' whose recent bankruptcy history indicated the appellant would not be financially responsible.

The Tribunal found that the husband was an interested person due to his initial involvement and potential to exercise control.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the public interest could be adequately protected by granting registration subject to strict conditions prohibiting the husband from having any beneficial interest, control, or financing role in the appellant's business.

The appeal was allowed and registration was reinstated with conditions.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her Class A commercial driver's licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Registrar based the suspension on an ongoing OPP investigation into a bribery scheme involving driving instructors and examiners, alleging the appellant's road test may have been compromised.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's licensing process was compromised.

The Tribunal set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to his diagnosis of Parkinson's disease.

The Registrar relied on medical reports from the appellant's family doctor and a nurse practitioner indicating worsening gait and coordination, and recommending a functional driving assessment.

The appellant argued his condition was stable following Deep Brain Stimulation treatment and did not interfere with his driving.

The Tribunal applied the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers and found that, absent a functional assessment confirming his ability to drive safely, the Registrar established that the medical condition was likely to significantly interfere with his driving.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of their motor vehicle, which occurred after another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as they worked from home, had a second vehicle, and received transportation assistance from a relative.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's decision to refuse its application for a security guard agency licence.

The Registrar refused the licence based on the involvement of the director's son, who was deemed an 'interested person' with a history of operating a noncompliant and bankrupt security agency.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Registrar's conclusion that the son was an interested person to be reasonable and supported by evidence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the appellant's claims of procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias, confirming the Registrar's decision to refuse the licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of a motor vehicle registered to her deceased partner.

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

The respondent brought a preliminary motion arguing the appellant lacked standing to appeal.

The Tribunal found that under the Highway Traffic Act, only the registered owner of the vehicle has standing to appeal an impoundment.

As the appellant was not the registered owner and had not yet obtained authority to administer the deceased's estate, she lacked standing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a reported substance use disorder related to cannabis.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including a psychiatrist's diagnosis, established that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded that the condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

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

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of a vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing he had sold the vehicle prior to the impoundment and was no longer the owner.

The appeal was filed past the 15-day deadline, prompting a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the appeal lacked merit.

The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction under s. 50.2 to adjudicate disputes over vehicle ownership, and the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on the grounds of due diligence or exceptional hardship.

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its motor vehicle after an employee was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence under s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the employee's licence status prior to the impoundment, as the office manager had authorized the vehicle's use without checking the licence or confirming its validity with the insurer.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for driving in contravention of an ignition interlock condition on his licence.

He filed an appeal two days after the 15-day deadline and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

Applying the four-factor test from Manuel, the Tribunal found that while the delay was short and there was a bona fide intention to appeal, the appeal lacked merit because the appellant conceded the ignition interlock condition was in place at the time of impoundment.

The motion to extend time was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed.

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

The appellant filed an appeal 21 days late and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time, finding the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because she had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including ride-sharing, rentals, and public transportation.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision finding him guilty of discreditable conduct and deceit, and the resulting penalty of dismissal.

The misconduct involved fabricating an anonymous traffic complaint against a known community member, conducting unauthorized database queries, and making false statements during the subsequent investigation.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal on all grounds.

The Commission found the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments, rejection of the appellant's medical defence, and conclusion that the telecommunication recording system was reliable were reasonable.

The penalty of dismissal was upheld as falling within the reasonable range given the seriousness of the misconduct.