Rupinder Hans

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

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she had been using a rental vehicle to attend work and complete essential tasks.

Although the rental was costly and inconvenient, inconvenience cannot be considered under the exceptional hardship test.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because the vehicle was its only salt truck needed for winter maintenance contracts.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while there was no alternative vehicle available, the appellant failed to prove the impoundment would result in a threat to health, safety, or the environment, or cause non-speculative financial loss.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternative means of transportation available, as she had been able to rent a vehicle to attend work and transport her child.

Since an alternative was available, the test for exceptional hardship under the Highway Traffic Act was not met.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's motor vehicle dealer registration, alleging that the past conduct of its sole officer, specifically failing to comply with all-in pricing regulations, afforded reasonable grounds to believe the business would not be carried on in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while there were two prior disciplinary orders for non-compliance, the evidence regarding the most recent alleged non-compliance showed the appellant was actually including the administration fee in the advertised price.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to meet its burden and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to revoke the registration.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle after his brother was caught driving it contrary to an ignition interlock condition on his driver's licence.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by reviewing a 'Driver's Licence History' document and relying on assurances from his father and brother that the licence was valid.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps, such as asking about the 'Y' notation under conditions on the document, checking the physical driver's licence, or making inquiries with the Ministry of Transportation.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's daughter's ex-partner was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

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

The Tribunal found that the driver took the vehicle keys from the daughter's purse while she was asleep, without consent or permission, with the intent to deprive the owner of it.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of the Act and ordered its release.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant suffers from these disorders, they are in remission and he is subject to random testing by his employer.

The Tribunal concluded that the medical conditions are not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the police discovered the appellant's friend driving it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the vehicle was stolen at the time of the impoundment, as she had not given her friend consent to drive it and he had taken the keys from her purse while she was asleep.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible and concluded that the vehicle was taken without her consent with the intent to deprive her of it.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

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

She argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship due to her employment and childcare transportation needs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternative means of transportation available, including rides from family, co-workers, taxis, and public transit, and therefore failed to meet the statutory test for exceptional hardship.

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 argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to transport her special-needs granddaughter to medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternative means of transportation available, including taxis, assistance from a neighbour, and public transit.

As the appellant failed to prove that no alternative transportation was available, the exceptional hardship test was not met and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor 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 at the time of the impoundment.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence that she had lent the vehicle to a friend, and the driver took the keys from the friend's home without permission.

Finding that the vehicle was taken without consent and with the intent to deprive the owner, the Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen and ordered its release.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his jointly owned vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant was caught driving while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence to determine his licence status, as he relied on assumptions and did not follow up with the Ministry of Transportation.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant and his co-owner had access to alternative transportation such as public transit, Uber, and another vehicle.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's chronic left shoulder pain and resulting functional limitations removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's physiatrist and treating physicians over the respondent's section 44 assessors.

The applicant was awarded all disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services and a physiatry assessment, plus interest on overdue payments.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized while being driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had alternative means of transportation available, including a second vehicle and assistance from family members, and therefore failed to meet the statutory test for exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant was caught driving while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle available, as he had been successfully using public transportation to commute to work and complete essential tasks.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after it was driven by her ex-partner while his licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence to confirm the driver's licence status before permitting him to drive.

The Tribunal also found that the impoundment would not cause exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to alternative transportation, including vehicles belonging to her neighbours and the driver.

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

The vehicle was impounded when the appellant's daughter's boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as her daughter had taken the keys from her purse without permission and given them to the boyfriend.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not consent to the vehicle's use and that it was taken with the intent to deprive her of it, meeting the definition of a stolen vehicle.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized when her grandson was caught driving it while his license was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had access to alternative transportation, including her husband's work vehicle, rides from family and neighbours, and grocery delivery services.

Because alternatives were available, the appellant failed to meet the test for exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized when her spouse was caught driving it while suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for her children's activities, medical appointments, and groceries.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove there were no alternative means of transportation available, as she had been using her spouse's employer's vehicle and a friend's vehicle to complete daily tasks.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle after his daughter was caught driving it without an ignition interlock device, contrary to her licence conditions.

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

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence, as he relied on assumptions and did not check his daughter's licence for conditions.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant's household had two other vehicles available for use.

The impoundment was confirmed.