Sanjay Kapur

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to downgrade his class DZ commercial driver's licence to a class G licence due to heart disease.

The Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from valvular heart disease resulting in congestive heart failure, classified as NYHA class 2 by his doctors.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial vehicle safely.

The appeal was dismissed and the Minister's decision to downgrade the licence was confirmed.

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

The suspension was initially based on reports of substance use and a psychiatric condition, but the Registrar later relied solely on the mental health condition, requiring a three-month period of stability.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's condition, diagnosed as depression, was stable, well-managed with prescribed medication, and did not significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence.

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

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 properly check the employee's licence, which had been suspended since 2005.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant was able to rent a replacement vehicle and his business would continue despite the financial loss.

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

The appellant appealed the impoundment to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that his staff exercised due diligence in checking the driver's licence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternatives to the impounded vehicle and would not suffer significant and lasting economic loss.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the appellant's staff failed to check the driver's licence, demonstrating a lack of due diligence.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after the vehicle was involved in an accident and police suspected her boyfriend, a suspended driver, was driving.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove the boyfriend was driving at the time of the accident.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence that she did not consent to her boyfriend taking the vehicle, satisfying the statutory ground that the vehicle was stolen at the time of the impoundment.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded because it was operated by a driver with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal late and brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant retrieved her car and intended to withdraw the motion, but did not clearly communicate this to the Tribunal.

At the hearing, the appellant confirmed she wished to withdraw her motion.

The Tribunal concluded the proceedings and closed the file.

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

The vehicle was impounded because it was operated by a driver with a suspended licence.

Although the appellant demonstrated a bona fide intention to appeal and the delay was minimal without prejudice to the respondent, the Tribunal found the appeal lacked merit.

The appellant could not establish exceptional hardship because she had access to an alternative vehicle and the impounded vehicle was damaged beyond repair.

The motion for an extension of time was denied.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 45 days after her boyfriend drove it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant filed an appeal within the 15-day period but her payment via pre-paid credit card was rejected.

She paid by money order shortly after the deadline.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to file the appeal.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test from Manuel v. Registrar and found that the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was short and not her fault, and she had a reasonable chance of success on the merits.

The motion to extend time was granted and the appeal was ordered to proceed directly to an expedited hearing.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove exceptional hardship, as the impact of the loss would primarily affect her rather than a person ordinarily transported in the vehicle, and the vehicle was ordinarily operated by the suspended driver.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.