Raymond C. Ramdayal

The appellant company appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle, which was seized after being operated by a suspended driver.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the vehicle was specially equipped for pest control.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship as it had a second similarly equipped vehicle and could adjust its business operations to mitigate the loss.

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

The appellant also brought a preliminary motion for a confidentiality order to anonymize the decision, which the Tribunal dismissed for failing to meet the Sherman Estate test.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from bipolar disorder and experienced recent psychotic episodes requiring hospitalization.

Applying the CCMTA medical standards, the Tribunal concluded the condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely, as she lacked medical confirmation of stability and demonstrated limited insight into her condition.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a Class 'G' licence following a single episode of syncope (loss of consciousness).

The Minister relied on the CCMTA medical standards, which require a 12-month waiting period for unexplained syncope.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant experienced syncope, it was postural and preceded by warning signs, rather than unexplained.

Noting the appellant's clean medical workup and support from his family doctor, the Tribunal concluded the condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

The Minister's decision to downgrade the licence was set aside.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his commercial truck under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an employee whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code offence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by checking the employee's Quebec driver's licence and abstract, which showed no suspensions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that because the employee was hired to drive in Ontario, the appellant ought to have conducted a more thorough search, including obtaining an Ontario driver's abstract, to ensure the employee was legally permitted to drive in the province.

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

The vehicle was impounded after police found the appellant's boyfriend operating it without an ignition interlock device, which was a condition of his driver's licence.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as required by section 10(4) of O. Reg. 631/98.

The appellant had access to other transportation options such as Uber or taxi, and was able to maintain her household and attend appointments without major disruption.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's common-law partner was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship because she had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including access to a second vehicle, public transit, and rides from others.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle after it was found being driven by a friend whose licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the driver's licence status and had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, thus not meeting the threshold for exceptional hardship.

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

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

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

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend their driver's licence after receiving a medical report indicating the appellant suffered a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant did suffer a seizure while seeking treatment for alcohol withdrawal, the condition was being properly monitored and managed.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent failed to prove the medical condition was likely to significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive safely, and set aside the licence suspension.

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

The appellant argued that the vehicle was taken without her consent and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative transportation and that the loss of the vehicle would result in a threat to the health and safety of her clients, as well as immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss.

The appeal was allowed on the ground of exceptional hardship, and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant, Tesla Motors Canada ULC, appealed the 45-day impoundment of its vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen from its dealership lot.

The Tribunal found that the appellant proved on a balance of probabilities that the vehicle was taken without consent by an unauthorized individual.

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

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after police found it being driven by a friend whose licence was subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence in verifying the driver's licence status and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant relied entirely on the driver's word without making independent inquiries to verify the licence status.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant successfully utilized reasonable alternatives, such as renting a vehicle, to maintain her daily routine.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by her former partner, who was subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove the vehicle was stolen, as there was no evidence the former partner intended to deprive her of it.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including borrowing a car and using public transit.

The impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a friend whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she lives in a rural area without public transit and requires her vehicle for her employment as a mental health and addictions counsellor, as well as to assist an elderly community member.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative to the vehicle and that its loss posed a threat to the health and safety of the vulnerable individuals she transports.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

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

The suspension followed a medical condition report indicating the appellant had been hospitalized after a relapse involving drugs and alcohol.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely, noting the recent relapse and lack of a substantial period of sobriety.

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

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

The vehicle was impounded after police determined his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The appellant argued that he had pled to a lesser charge of dangerous operation, resulting in a one-year driving prohibition that had expired months before the impoundment.

The Tribunal found that an administrative error in the Ministry of Transportation's records failed to reflect the lesser plea and the expiration of the suspension.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant exercised due diligence and ordered the release of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a friend whose licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for work and to assist her parents.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship because she had reasonable alternatives, including public transit, ride-sharing, and a rental vehicle, which allowed her to maintain her employment and family obligations.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after police found it being driven by an individual prohibited from driving without an ignition interlock device.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship as she is a single mother who relies on the vehicle for work and family care.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had successfully utilized rides from family and co-workers, borrowed vehicles, and accessed nearby amenities.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition report indicating uncontrolled alcohol use disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from severe alcohol use disorder, as diagnosed by two physicians, and that he had not maintained the required six months of abstinence.

The Tribunal concluded that the condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

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 the appellant's ex-partner driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship for her and her four children, as she had no reasonable alternative transportation for school, medical appointments, and groceries.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant established exceptional hardship and ordered the release of the vehicle.