OLAT 2016

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

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant lent it to her boyfriend, who was an unlicensed and suspended driver.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to file the appeal but dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding that the appellant failed to prove she had no alternative transportation or that she suffered an immediate, significant, and lasting loss.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver's licence following a report of a nocturnal hypoglycaemic seizure.

The seizure occurred because the appellant, who has Type 2 diabetes, took his evening insulin without testing his blood sugar after a low-carbohydrate meal.

His family physician testified that the cause of the seizure was clearly identified, the appellant's diabetes education was corrected, and he is now safe to drive.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant does not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the suspension of his Class 'G' licence.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle after it was driven by a suspended driver.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted an extension of time to appeal.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to exercise due diligence as she made no inquiries about the driver's licence status.

However, the Tribunal found the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the appellant lost a seasonal second job due to the lack of transportation, resulting in a significant and lasting loss of income.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

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

The appellant argued she exercised due diligence by assuming the driver's licence was valid after seeing him use it as identification, and claimed exceptional hardship due to the cost of renting a replacement vehicle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to make active inquiries regarding the licence status and did not establish exceptional hardship because she had an alternative means of transportation.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after he loaned it to a friend whose driver's 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 exercise due diligence by not checking the driver's licence before loaning the vehicle.

The Tribunal also found no exceptional hardship, as the appellant was able to rent a vehicle for work and the financial cost did not meet the strict legislative criteria.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative to the impounded vehicle existed, as she was able to use public transportation and had other vehicles registered in her name.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act on the basis of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after a suspended driver, whom the appellant had briefly encountered, drove the vehicle without her permission while she was experiencing a panic attack.

The appellant, who suffers from severe medical conditions and lives on a very limited income, relied on the vehicle for medical appointments and daily needs.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had no reasonable alternative transportation and that the loss of the vehicle posed a threat to her health.

The appeal was allowed and the vehicle was ordered released.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor 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 boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had purchased an alternative vehicle shortly after the impoundment and maintained her full-time employment.

As an alternative vehicle was available and the financial loss was not immediate, significant, and lasting, the statutory criteria for exceptional hardship were not met.

The Appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to downgrade his commercial driver's licence to a Class 'G' licence following a medical suspension.

The suspension was initiated after the Appellant suffered a single seizure provoked by a stroke and was prescribed anti-convulsant medication.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Appellant did not meet the medical standards for a commercial licence because he had not been seizure-free off medication for 12 months.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision, noting that the Appellant could seek reinstatement once he provided medical evidence of being seizure-free for 12 months without medication.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle, which occurred after his daughter permitted her boyfriend, a suspended driver, to drive it.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen, that he exercised due diligence, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the vehicle was not stolen as the daughter had permission to use it, the appellant failed to make any inquiries regarding the boyfriend's licence status, and the resulting financial difficulties did not meet the strict legislative test for exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle resulted in exceptional hardship.

The appellant had loaned his vehicle to a suspended driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, as required by O. Reg. 631/98, because he had been managing by relying on ride share, his ex-wife, and co-workers.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence based on a 2006 Medical Condition Report alleging alcohol and drug dependence.

The appellant's current family physician provided reports in 2010 and 2013 stating there were no concerning drug or alcohol abuse issues and recommending reinstatement.

The Tribunal found the current family physician's opinion more persuasive than the 10-year-old report from a single walk-in clinic visit.

The Tribunal concluded the Ministry of Transportation did not meet its onus to prove the appellant was addicted to alcohol or drugs to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Registrar's decision was set aside.

The Appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which occurred after her boyfriend was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Appellant argued she exercised due diligence by previously seeing him show his licence to a security guard, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to her health issues and work requirements.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant failed to take sufficient steps to verify the licence status before allowing him to drive.

The Tribunal also found that the Appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle and did not demonstrate an immediate, significant, and lasting threat to her health, safety, or employment.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a severe hypoglycaemic event that resulted in a loss of consciousness and seizure.

The Registrar suspended the licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and requested further medical information, which the appellant failed to provide.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the suspension, finding that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to justify departing from the CCMTA guideline requiring at least six months of stability following a severe hypoglycaemic event.

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

The vehicle was impounded after her husband was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had rented a vehicle and had access to public transit, meaning a reasonable alternative existed.

The Tribunal concluded that the financial cost of the rental and impound fees did not meet the regulatory threshold for exceptional hardship.

The appellant 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 her son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for an impaired driving conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had access to her mother's vehicle and could get rides from friends, meaning she had a reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle.

The Tribunal confirmed the 45-day impoundment.

The appellant corporation appealed the 45-day impoundment of its commercial motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after one of its sub-contracted drivers was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued it exercised due diligence by relying on its insurance broker to verify licences, and that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to verify the licence itself, and that renting a replacement vehicle demonstrated a reasonable alternative existed, negating the exceptional hardship claim.

The Appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a medical report indicating an unstable psychiatric condition and drug misuse.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed medical evidence, including a recent report from the Appellant's psychiatrist confirming her condition had stabilized and she was compliant with her treatment regimen.

The Tribunal found the Appellant met the CCMTA Guideline 14.6.1 for psychiatric disorders and was not suffering from a condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar's decision was set aside.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing due diligence and exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant allowed a suspended driver to operate it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship because the appellant lived in a rural community with no public transit, could not afford a rental vehicle, and required the vehicle to transport her infant daughter, who had significant health issues, to medical care and day care.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

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

The suspension was triggered by a Medical Condition Report from a psychiatrist noting the appellant's suicidal ideation involving a motor vehicle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had voluntarily sought medical help, was adherent to treatment, and his condition was stable.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal concluded the appellant did not suffer from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The appeal was allowed and the suspension was set aside.