Rupinder Hans

The appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal the impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal was filed 22 days after the 15-day deadline.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, adequately explained the delay due to missing paperwork and lack of information from police, and raised an arguable case of exceptional hardship.

Despite some prejudice to the respondent, the justice of the case warranted granting the extension.

The motion was allowed and the appeal was directed to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) at a rate of $400.00 per week following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had been paying IRBs but at a lower rate based on its own accounting reports.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's accounting reports, which relied on the applicant's actual CRA income tax returns and notices of assessment, were more reliable than the applicant's reports, which relied on estimated expenses.

The Tribunal also upheld the respondent's calculation of the reduced IRB rate after the applicant turned 65.

The applicant's claim for interest was dismissed as the respondent properly suspended benefits pending receipt of requested income information.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his Class G driver's licence due to cognitive impairment.

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report submitted by the appellant's family doctor following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant denied having any medical issues and refused to undergo further cognitive testing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a cognitive impairment that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred when her partner 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 work, school, and childcare.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to and was using alternative forms of transportation, such as public transit and ride-sharing services, and therefore failed to prove exceptional hardship under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which occurred when her partner was caught driving it while suspended.

She argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for work, school, and childcare.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to and was using alternative forms of transportation, including public transit and ride-sharing services, and therefore failed to meet the statutory test for exceptional hardship.

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

The vehicle had been rented through the TURO application to a validly licensed driver, but was subsequently driven by an unauthorized individual whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence.

The Tribunal held that the due diligence ground of appeal under section 50.2(3)(c) is only available regarding the intended driver of the vehicle, not an unauthorized third party.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as she had not given her son consent to drive it and had taken preventative measures by keeping the keys in her bedroom.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible, concluding 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 Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from an alcohol use disorder that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not completed a supervised rehabilitation program and was not attending ongoing treatment, falling short of the criteria for re-licensing under the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons following a motor vehicle collision caused by a severe hypoglycemic episode.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant suffers from severe hypoglycemia, he had taken decisive steps to monitor and control his blood sugar levels, including using a continuous glucose monitor and working with a medical team.

The Tribunal concluded that the condition was not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to cognitive impairment resulting from a stroke and a visual condition.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal regarding the visual condition suspension.

On the cognitive impairment issue, the Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a cognitive impairment that significantly interferes with his ability to drive safely, relying on medical reports and two failed functional driving assessments.

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

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

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship for his family, as his partner needed a vehicle for her 70-kilometre commute.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as the family had access to a second vehicle and had successfully rented a replacement vehicle.

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a tenant whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

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

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible that the tenant took the vehicle keys without her consent or permission while she was sleeping.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment and ordered its release.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically an alcohol use disorder, under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant suffers from an alcohol use disorder, he is in remission, compliant with treatment, and has a strong support system.

The Tribunal concluded that the condition is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision, reinstating the licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under 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 Tribunal found that while there was no alternative vehicle available, the financial loss and inconvenience suffered by the appellant could not be considered under the regulation because he was the person driving while suspended.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle, which was seized after he was caught driving with a suspended licence.

He argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because his pregnant wife and child relied on the vehicle for work, daycare, and medical appointments.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as the family had been utilizing public transportation, taxis, Ubers, and rides from family members and co-workers.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the appellant's registration as a travel retailer under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, citing financial concerns and past conduct.

The parties waived a hearing and agreed to a consent order continuing the registration subject to strict conditions, including timely filing of financial statements, responding to Registrar requests, and maintaining positive working capital by a specified deadline.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence for medical reasons under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report from a psychiatrist indicating an unspecified psychosis following an involuntary hospital admission.

The appellant denied having a mental health condition and argued he was safe to drive, but failed to provide any updated medical evidence to refute the initial report or demonstrate his condition was stable.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle after it was found being driven by an employee whose licence was suspended.

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 confirm the driver's licence status and failed to prove there were no alternative vehicles available for his business.

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

The vehicle was impounded after a co-worker drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, as he had left the keys in an office drawer at work and explicitly told co-workers not to drive it.

The Tribunal found the appellant's testimony credible and concluded that the co-worker took the vehicle without consent with the intent to deprive the owner of it.

The Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle, finding it was stolen at the time of impoundment.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after the vehicle was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant claimed due diligence and exceptional hardship.

However, the appellant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

As the appellant bore the onus of proving his claims on a balance of probabilities and presented no evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment.