OLAT 2012

The applicant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence due to a physician's report concerning substance abuse.

The applicant failed to provide requested medical information from an addictions specialist to the Registrar.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the applicant must supply the requested medical information before consideration of restoration of his driving privileges.

The applicant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

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

The applicant argued the licence was not suspended, that it exercised due diligence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the licence was indeed suspended, the applicant failed to exercise due diligence by not obtaining a driver's abstract, and no exceptional hardship existed because the applicant had alternative vehicles available.

The applicant appealed an Order of Immediate Suspension issued by the Registrar under the Gaming Control Act.

At the pre-hearing, the parties advised they had reached a resolution.

The applicant withdrew its appeal and the Registrar withdrew its Order of Immediate Suspension.

The Tribunal ordered the matter concluded and the file closed.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the applicant's liquor licence.

At the commencement of the hearing, the parties advised they had reached a resolution of all matters in contention.

The applicant withdrew its appeal and the Registrar withdrew its Notice of Proposal.

The Tribunal ordered the matter concluded and the file closed.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence following a medical condition report indicating alcohol or drug abuse.

The applicant had suffered a head injury from a fall, which he testified was not alcohol-related.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's excellent driving record, his testimony that he does not drink and drive, and his reduced alcohol consumption.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not have a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision.

The applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a Medical Condition Report citing alcohol dependence.

The applicant argued he had modified his drinking habits and that his physician reported him out of spite after a disagreement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the physician's concerns about the applicant's alcohol dependence and lack of insight were valid, and that the applicant needed to provide the requested medical information to the Registrar.

The Tribunal confirmed the suspension in the interest of public safety.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar's refusal was based on the Applicant's recent conviction for conspiracy to traffic cocaine and false statements made on his application regarding his criminal involvement and employment history.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant's version of events on his application was false and misleading, contradicting the facts admitted during his guilty plea.

The Tribunal concluded that the serious nature of the conviction and the Applicant's failure to take full responsibility provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

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

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

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by the applicant's daughter, whose licence was suspended for failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had access to alternative modes of transportation, such as the Greyhound bus, and therefore failed to meet the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The Applicant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence following two episodes of loss of consciousness.

The Registrar relied on a Medical Advisory Committee recommendation requiring a five-year seizure-free period based on a diagnosis of post-traumatic epilepsy.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant suffered from a seizure disorder secondary to a remote head injury, not epilepsy, and that he had been seizure-free and compliant with medication.

The Tribunal concluded the Applicant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar's decision, ordering annual medical reporting.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by a suspended driver.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had alternative modes of transportation available, including renting a vehicle and using her daughter's car.

As an alternative existed, the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the ground of exceptional hardship.

The applicant had allowed her ex-husband, whom she knew to be a suspended driver, to use her vehicle, which was subsequently impounded.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant faced significant financial loss due to alternative transportation costs, she did have alternative transportation available (taxis, buses, friends).

Under O. Reg. 631/98, financial loss cannot be considered exceptional hardship if alternative transportation exists.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by a former employee whose licence was suspended.

The applicant argued it exercised due diligence and that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the applicant failed to exercise due diligence by leaving keys in vehicles in an unsecured lot, and failed to demonstrate exceptional hardship as there was no evidence of lost business or health and safety concerns.

The impoundment was confirmed.

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

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant allowed her boyfriend, a suspended driver, to drive it because she was experiencing back pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had alternative means of transportation available, such as renting a vehicle, getting rides from friends and family, and using vacation time.

As a result, the criteria for exceptional hardship under O. Reg. 631/98 were not met, and the impoundment was confirmed.