Theodore Crljenica

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the basis of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded because the operator was driving with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as public transit and rides from his daughter, and failed to demonstrate that the loss of the vehicle would result in a threat to his health or safety.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant police officer appealed a Hearing Officer's decision ordering his dismissal after he pleaded guilty to insubordination and discreditable conduct, including unauthorized CPIC queries, illegal drug use, and requesting a ticket be voided.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh medical evidence regarding a PTSD diagnosis.

The Commission dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained prior to the hearing with due diligence.

The Commission upheld the penalty of dismissal, concluding the Hearing Officer reasonably weighed the dispositional factors and the severity of the misconduct.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle after his son, a young offender with a suspended licence, was caught driving it.

The appellant filed the appeal 11 days late and sought an extension of time, which the Tribunal granted, finding the appellant had formed the intent to appeal within the 15-day period but was delayed by the Tribunal's own slow response to his inquiries.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the vehicle was 'stolen' within the meaning of the Highway Traffic Act, as the son took the vehicle without colour of right and with the intent to temporarily deprive the appellant of it to engage in a forbidden activity.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle ordered released.

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

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen because her son took the keys without her permission while she was sleeping.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the vehicle was taken without consent, it was not 'stolen' within the meaning of the Act because the son intended to return it and did not intend to deprive the appellant of her property.

The appellant filed a motion to extend the time to appeal the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after her friend, who allegedly had a suspended license, was stopped by police while driving.

The appellant delayed filing the appeal due to financial hardship, having lost her job and being unable to afford the filing fee until she received Employment Insurance.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the Manuel factors and found that, despite the delay and prejudice to the respondent, the justice of the case required granting the extension.

The motion was granted and the appeal was ordered to proceed directly to a hearing.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen at the time it was driven by a suspended driver.

The appellant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to satisfy her onus to prove the vehicle was stolen.

The appellant's motor vehicle was impounded after his brother was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment to the Licence Appeal Tribunal on the grounds of due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant exercised due diligence by asking to see his brother's driver's licence, which appeared valid on its face but had been altered.

The Tribunal held that a reasonable person is not required to contact the Ministry of Transportation to verify a licence that appears valid.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar of the Condominium Management Regulatory Authority of Ontario to refuse to grant him a limited licence.

The parties reached a resolution and entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal approved the settlement, disposing of the matter without a hearing.

Under the settlement, the appellant withdrew his application and appeal, and undertook not to reapply for a licence before January 22, 2021.

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

The vehicle was impounded because it was being driven by a suspended driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative vehicle was available or that he had inquired into reasonable options, such as renting a truck.

Furthermore, the appellant did not provide sufficient financial evidence to prove that the loss of the vehicle would result in an immediate, significant, and lasting economic loss.

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen by her son's girlfriend (a suspended driver) and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was not stolen, as the driver did not intend to deprive the owner of it.

The Tribunal also found the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship, as she did not demonstrate that no alternatives were available or that the impoundment would result in immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss or a threat to health and safety.

However, the Tribunal reduced the impoundment period from 90 days to 45 days, noting this was the appellant's first valid impoundment.

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 suspended driver.

The appellant argued that the vehicle, which was unplated and not roadworthy, had been stolen from her rural property by the suspended driver.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's uncontradicted evidence that the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment.

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

The appellant appealed the 90-day impoundment of his motor vehicle after it was driven by a suspended driver who lived with him.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by hiding the keys before leaving for work.

The Tribunal found that the statutory due diligence defence only applies to determining whether a driver's licence is suspended, not to preventing access to the vehicle.

Since the appellant knew the driver was suspended, and the vehicle was not stolen, none of the statutory grounds for release under section 50.2(3) of the Highway Traffic Act were met.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

She appealed the impoundment on the grounds of exceptional hardship, citing the costs of using Uber for groceries and transporting her children, as well as the impact on her anxiety.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to establish that she had considered and inquired into every reasonable alternative, such as asking her ex-husband to assist with transportation, and that the financial impact did not meet the threshold for exceptional hardship.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after police discovered a suspended driver's licence in her maiden name, which had been created by the Ministry of Transportation following a 2000 impaired driving conviction.

The appellant, who was unlicensed at the time of the conviction, was never notified of this licence or its suspension.

In 2017, she obtained a valid driver's licence in her married name, which she was using at the time of the impoundment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant exercised due diligence by relying on the valid driver's licence issued to her by Service Ontario.

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

The vehicle was impounded because the appellant's husband was allegedly driving it without an ignition interlock device, contrary to his licence conditions.

The appellant argued the vehicle was being driven on a private road, not a 'highway' as defined by the Act.

During the hearing, the respondent's agent requested that the tribunal allow the appeal on consent.

The tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence and would suffer exceptional hardship.

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

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence as she took no steps to verify the driver's licence status before he drove.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as public transit and walking were viable alternatives for the appellant and her children.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after it was driven by an individual with a suspended licence.

The appellant appealed the impoundment under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing she exercised due diligence because she did not know the individual would be driving, and claiming exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish due diligence as she entrusted the vehicle to her daughter without ensuring it would not be driven by an unlicensed driver.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant had access to an alternative vehicle and faced only minor inconvenience.

The appellant police officer appealed findings of guilt for discreditable conduct and insubordination arising from an off-duty incident at a Human Rights Tribunal hearing, where he loudly accused superior officers of being racists.

The Commission upheld the Hearing Officer's decision, finding that the objective test for discreditable conduct was met and that off-duty conduct could constitute insubordination under the Police Services Act where there is a connection to the reputation of the police force.

The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of forfeiture of 24 hours was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Director's proposal to refuse his application for a motor vehicle inspection station (MVIS) licence and registration as a motor vehicle inspection mechanic.

The appellant's previous licence and registration were revoked in 2015 due to issuing improper safety certificates, which the Tribunal had found was due to a lack of knowledge rather than dishonesty.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had since taken adequate steps to educate himself on the new regulations and rust-related safety issues.

The Tribunal concluded that the Director did not have reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act in accordance with the law, honesty, integrity, and competence, and ordered the Director to refrain from carrying out the proposal.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Bailiffs' proposal to refuse his application for registration as an assistant bailiff.

The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's lengthy criminal record, which included convictions for theft, assault, and dishonesty, as well as a false statement on his application regarding his criminal history.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's criminal record and attempt to mislead the Registrar provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.