Raymond C. Ramdayal

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after being caught driving while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code offence.

He argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship because he had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as getting rides from others and hiring a driver.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after police found it being driven by her boyfriend, whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code offence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate she had no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had been successfully using cabs, buses, and family assistance to manage her daily routine.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her friend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appeal was filed 18 days past the deadline.

The Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that the appellant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit only because she was not provided with the necessary information on how to do so.

Finding the delay was not significant and the appeal had a reasonable chance of success on the grounds of theft or exceptional hardship, the Tribunal granted the extension of time.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was driven by an employee with a suspended licence.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the appellant lacked standing because she was not the registered owner at the exact time of impoundment, having acquired ownership from her father shortly after.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's motion, finding the current owner has standing to appeal.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal granted the extension of time, noting the appellant's bona fide intention to appeal, reasonable efforts to obtain information, and the merits of her hardship claim.

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

The appellant argued exceptional hardship and due diligence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's practice of checking employee driver's licences only once a year did not meet the standard of due diligence.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship because it had reasonable alternatives, including other vehicles in its fleet, to mitigate the loss of the impounded vehicle.

The appellant sought an extension of time to file an appeal of a 45-day vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant filed the appeal 16 days after the expiry of the 15-day appeal period and failed to attend the peremptory motion hearing.

Applying the factors from Manuel v. Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, the Tribunal found no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, a significant unexplained delay, and no reasonable chance of success on the merits.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after an employee drove it while suspended.

The appellant was out of province at the time and filed the appeal 21 days after the impoundment, missing the 15-day deadline.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was minimal, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The motion to extend the time for filing the appeal was granted.

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

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship due to her caregiving responsibilities for elderly relatives and children.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as using her mother's vehicle, public transit, and delivery services, and therefore failed to establish exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after she allowed a friend with a suspended licence to drive her home.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she needed it to transport her son to activities and her elderly father to critical medical appointments.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant established exceptional hardship on a balance of probabilities and ordered the vehicle released.

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 discovered it being driven by an individual whose driver's licence required an ignition interlock device, which the vehicle lacked.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship to his snow removal business.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate that there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as required by section 10(4) of O. Reg. 631/98, noting he had access to other vehicles in his fleet and could borrow a family member's vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after her son was caught driving it while his 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 did not exercise due care in securing her keys, given her son's history of non-compliance, and thus failed to prove the vehicle was stolen.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the vehicle was totaled in the crash and the appellant had access to alternative transportation.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed an advertising order issued by the Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority.

The parties reached a settlement and applied to dispose of the matter without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal issued a consent order withdrawing both the Registrar's order and the appeal without costs.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Tarion Warranty Corporation to refuse to grant an application for a determination that a home qualifies for enrolment in the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan.

The parties reached a settlement and applied under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

The Tribunal issued a consent order withdrawing the appeal and the Notice of Proposal without costs, and directed the Registrar to commence review of the appellant's application in the ordinary course.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically substance use disorder and a psychiatric condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from an uncontrolled cannabis use disorder and schizophrenia, which significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appellant failed to provide the required medical forms to assess his fitness to drive and lacked insight into his condition.

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

The appellant, a trucking company owner, appealed the 45-day impoundment of his commercial vehicle after it was caught being driven by an employee with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by relying on a clear driver's abstract obtained over a year prior, before the employee took an extended leave.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence, as he did not pull an up-to-date abstract or take any other steps to verify the employee's licence status upon his return to work.

The impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant sought an extension of time to file an appeal of a 45-day vehicle impoundment under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the driver, who had permission to use the vehicle, was found to be subject to an active ignition interlock requirement.

The appeal was filed 117 days after the impoundment, well beyond the 15-day statutory limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, the delay was significant, and granting the extension would prejudice the respondent.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons related to a suspected substance use disorder and substance-induced psychosis.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal proceeded in her absence and found, based on the unsolicited Medical Condition Report and the appellant's failure to provide a requested substance use assessment, that her medical condition was likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

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

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons.

The suspension was based on the appellant's hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachycardia and a recent shock from his implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's medical condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, as less than six months had passed since his last device intervention.

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

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons following a hospital visit for a seizure caused by substance use.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder that remains unresolved, as he had only been abstinent for a short period, continued to test positive for THC, and had not completed a treatment program.

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

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically an alcohol use disorder.

The suspension followed an unsolicited report from an emergency room physician.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from an alcohol use disorder and had not demonstrated a sufficient period of sobriety or provided the required medical clearance forms.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence, concluding that the condition is likely to significantly interfere with the appellant's ability to drive safely.