Raymond C. Ramdayal

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

The vehicle was impounded after police found it being driven by an individual whose licence was suspended and subject to a mandatory ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as rides from friends and family, and therefore failed to meet the test for exceptional hardship.

The Respondent requested a reconsideration of a decision that denied the Applicant's application for the return of her animals.

The Respondent sought to amend paragraphs in the decision regarding the status of a Statement of Account appeal, noting it had been dismissed after the hearing.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the new information did not affect the outcome of the decision and that the reconsideration process is not intended for administrative amendments.

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

The vehicle was impounded after police found it being operated by a driver whose licence was suspended and who was subject to a mandatory ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle and failed to establish exceptional hardship.

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 police found it being driven by the appellant's son-in-law, whose driver's licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant, a pensioner living in a remote community with no public transit, had no reasonable alternatives to the vehicle and relied on it for medical appointments and essentials.

The Tribunal concluded that the impoundment posed a threat to the health and safety of the appellant and set aside the impoundment, ordering the vehicle's release.

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 appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant, a single mother and student working night shifts, had no reasonable alternative transportation and that the loss of the vehicle posed a threat to her health, safety, and employment.

The appeal was allowed and the impoundment was set aside.

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

The vehicle was impounded after police found it being operated by her son, whose driver's licence was suspended.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that her son's licence was valid.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant took reasonable care, as she had accompanied her son to Service Ontario where he was issued a licence without conditions, and she verified the licence status on the Ministry of Transportation website, which showed it as valid.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant demonstrated due diligence on a balance of probabilities and ordered the return of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by her son, whose licence was suspended for impaired driving.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship because she had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as getting rides from friends and her daughter.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a 'G' licence following a medical report indicating an episode of syncope and loss of consciousness.

The appellant argued the diagnosis was based on a mistranslation and that his dizziness was caused by dehydration.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal preferred the medical evidence of the treating emergency physician and cardiologist, finding that the appellant suffered an atypical vasovagal syncope episode.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards, the Tribunal concluded the condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a commercial vehicle and confirmed the Minister's decision to downgrade the licence.

The appellant appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying a warranty claim for alleged defects in the master bathroom's in-floor heating system.

The appellant argued the heating system was incomplete and left cold spots around the soaker tub.

The builder and Tarion maintained the system was installed correctly according to the manufacturer's specifications, which prohibit installing heating cables under or too close to fixtures.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no breach of warranty, concluding the installation met manufacturer specifications and passed electrical inspection, and directed Tarion to deny the claim.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's friend was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code offence.

The appeal was filed 42 days past the statutory deadline.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, a lengthy delay, and no reasonable chance of success on the merits, as the appellant's family managed without the vehicle and failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship.

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

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after it was driven by her partner, whose licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence, as she took no steps to verify her partner's licence.

However, the Tribunal found the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the appellant had no reasonable alternative transportation and relied on the vehicle for her work as a personal trainer, her own medical appointments, and transporting her father to medical appointments.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her partner was caught driving it without a mandatory ignition interlock device.

The appeal was filed 116 days past the statutory deadline.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was extraordinary, and the proposed ground of exceptional hardship had no reasonable chance of success because she had access to other vehicles.

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

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle after loaning it to a contractor who was involved in a collision and found to be an unlicensed driver with a lifetime suspension.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence but admitted she did not ask to see the driver's licence or take any steps to verify his status.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence on a balance of probabilities, as she took no reasonable actions to ensure the driver was properly licensed.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence due to a reported heart condition.

The suspension was initiated after the appellant's family physician submitted a Medical Condition Report noting episodes of sudden light-headedness and an abnormal exercise stress test.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from an active, unresolved heart condition that poses a significant risk to road safety.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

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

The suspension was based on medical reports indicating the appellant suffered from alcohol use disorder.

The appellant argued they were abstinent and their condition did not interfere with their ability to drive safely.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffered from alcohol use disorder, noting multiple hospitalizations for withdrawal and a lack of support from treating physicians for driving privileges.

Applying the CCMTA Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded the condition was likely to significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a class G licence due to an implanted cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant has a medical condition, it is stable, well-managed, and his annual risk of sudden incapacitation is less than 1%.

The Tribunal concluded that the condition is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely and set aside the Minister's decision.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a mental health condition and substance use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including reports from a nurse practitioner, established that the appellant suffers from bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and an active substance use disorder involving the inappropriate use of cough syrup.

The Tribunal concluded that these conditions, combined with a history of non-compliance with medication and lack of insight, are likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle after his son was caught driving it without an ignition interlock device, a condition of the son's driver's licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as he had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle.

However, the Tribunal found that the appellant exercised due diligence in attempting to determine if his son's licence was subject to conditions, given his limited English skills, his reliance on his son's reassurances, and the lack of evidence that the Ministry mailed the interlock requirement notice to the correct address.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

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

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she was homeless, all her family's belongings were in the vehicle, and she needed the vehicle to transport her husband to frequent medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle and that its loss posed a threat to the health and safety of her and her husband.

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, which occurred after he was caught driving without a required ignition interlock device.

He argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because he needed the vehicle for work.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as sharing a vehicle with his mother and securely storing his tools at job sites to use public transit.