Nives Montano

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative to the vehicle due to her severe physical disabilities, lack of social support, and inability to afford other transportation.

Furthermore, the lack of a vehicle posed a significant threat to her health and safety as she could not access necessary medical appointments or refill critical prescriptions.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

The appellant rental car company appealed the impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle had been rented to a customer with strict instructions that only she was permitted to drive it.

At the time of impoundment, the vehicle was being driven by an unidentified suspended driver.

The Tribunal found that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of section 50.2(3)(a) of the Act because it was taken without the owner's consent, and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle.

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, a suspended driver, was caught driving it.

The appellant, an 88-year-old with medical issues, claimed the vehicle was needed for medical appointments.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had reasonable alternatives for transportation and failed to demonstrate an immediate, significant, and lasting threat to health or safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after police arrested the appellant's daughter, a suspended driver, who was a passenger in the parked vehicle.

The appellant argued that her daughter's friend, who was not suspended, was the actual driver.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's credible hearsay evidence over the documentary evidence, finding that the friend was driving the vehicle when police observed it.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse her registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a resolution and consented to an order placing specific conditions on the appellant's licence, including prohibitions on ownership or management of a dealership and reporting requirements for charges, convictions, or judgments.

The Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating these terms and concluded the matter without a hearing.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the driver was not suspended and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship due to her special needs child.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the suspended driver was driving and had switched seats with the appellant when stopped by police.

The Tribunal also found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as assistance from her mother and public transit, and therefore did not meet the criteria for exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's stepson was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a drinking and driving conviction.

The appellant withdrew his appeal ground of due diligence, admitting he took no precautionary measures to secure the vehicle's keys.

On the ground of exceptional hardship, the Tribunal found that the appellant and his family had alternative means of transportation available, as they had managed with the help of his wife's vehicle and a co-worker.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's boyfriend, a suspended driver, was caught driving it.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative means of transportation, including a second vehicle, taxis, and public transit, and that her son's medical appointments and her job search did not meet the threshold for exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's father was stopped by police and found to be a suspended driver.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence because he had given the vehicle to his father a year prior, instructed him to transfer the ownership, and reasonably believed the transfer had occurred.

The Tribunal found that the appellant exercised due diligence, as his father had actively misled him and there were no indicators prompting the appellant to verify the licence status.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant, a senior with medical issues, argued she and her family relied on the vehicle for medical appointments and daily needs.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had managed with alternative transportation from friends and neighbours, and was paying for her family's transportation costs.

As there was no serious impact or threat to health and safety, exceptional hardship was not established.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's husband, whose licence was suspended for life, drove it to run errands while the appellant was ill.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as she had alternative means of transportation through friends, neighbours, and public transit, and there was no threat to health or safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by his son, whose licence was suspended for Criminal Code driving offences.

The applicant, who was vacationing out of the country, argued he exercised due diligence and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant provided insufficient evidence of due diligence and failed to demonstrate that the impoundment posed a threat to health or safety or caused exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant car dealership appealed the 45-day impoundment of its snowplow vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the dealership's owner was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the vehicle was needed to clear snow from the dealership lot.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship as alternative arrangements for snow removal had been successfully made.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's daughter allowed a suspended driver to operate it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative means of transportation, including a company vehicle, and that her daughter was able to use the suspended driver's vehicle to attend school.

As there was no threat to health or safety and alternatives were available, the Tribunal concluded that exceptional hardship was not established.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant allowed her husband, a suspended driver, to drive it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had alternative means of transportation and failed to establish that the loss of the vehicle resulted in exceptional hardship.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's daughter permitted her boyfriend, a suspended driver, to drive it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had access to an alternative vehicle (his parents' vehicle) and therefore failed to meet the threshold criterion for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of the applicants under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement agreement prior to the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order incorporating the terms of settlement, which included restricting the applicants' registration to the 'Wholesaler' class for one year, imposing a 90-day interim suspension, and requiring successful completion of the OMVIC Certification Course.

The applicants appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration issued by the Registrar under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

At a pre-hearing conference, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order concluding the proceedings without a hearing, subject to extensive terms and conditions on the applicants' registration, including restrictions on personnel, advertising, record-keeping, and financial responsibility.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant allowed her boyfriend, a suspended driver, to drive it because she was experiencing back pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had alternative means of transportation available, such as renting a vehicle, getting rides from friends and family, and using vacation time.

As a result, the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met, and the impoundment was confirmed.