OLAT 2018

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

The vehicle was impounded while being driven by her spouse, whose licence was suspended.

The Tribunal found that the appellant and her family were able to make alternate transportation arrangements during the impoundment period.

As such, the appellant failed to demonstrate that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, precluding a finding of exceptional hardship.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his commercial truck under the Highway Traffic Act on the grounds of exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after being driven by an employee whose licence was suspended.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that no alternative vehicle was available or that the impoundment caused an immediate, significant, and lasting financial loss, as required by O. Reg. 631/98.

The Appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The Registrar's proposal was based on the Appellant's outstanding criminal charges in Alberta, including assault and failure to appear in court.

Following a Divisional Court order for a trial de novo, the Tribunal considered new evidence showing the Appellant had resolved the outstanding charges, resulting in a fine for assault and the withdrawal of the failure to appear charge.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant's delay in addressing the charges did not demonstrate a pattern of ungovernability or a risk to the public.

The Tribunal concluded the Registrar failed to prove the Appellant would not carry on business with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence following a medical report indicating he suffered a seizure and lost consciousness.

The appellant argued the loss of consciousness was caused by a chiropractor hitting a nerve.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal rejected this explanation, finding based on medical evidence that the appellant suffered either a seizure or cardiogenic syncope.

Given the lack of follow-up treatment or a clear diagnosis, the Tribunal concluded the condition was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the suspension.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence under section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act due to a medical report diagnosing her with major depressive disorder and substance use disorder.

The Registrar conceded the substance use disorder was no longer a basis for suspension.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the appellant suffers from major depressive disorder, the condition is stable, medically supervised, and not likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

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

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The parties reached a resolution and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to register the appellant as a motor vehicle dealer in the wholesale class, subject to conditions including the successful completion of the Automotive Certification Course and compliance with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The appellant's driver's licence was suspended for 90 days after providing a breath sample over the legal limit.

He appealed the suspension on the ground of mistaken identity, arguing he was stopped based on outdated database information, despite admitting he provided the breath sample.

The Tribunal initially dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On reconsideration, the Associate Chair found the Tribunal erred in finding a lack of jurisdiction, as the appellant relied on a valid statutory ground, but held the appeal should have been dismissed as frivolous since the appellant admitted to being the person who provided the sample.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the suspension of her driver's licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles following a stroke that resulted in cognitive impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed medical reports and functional driving assessments which indicated the appellant had skill deficits and was unable to integrate safe driving strategies.

The Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a cognitive impairment likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke its registration as a travel agency under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

Prior to the resumption of the hearing, the parties resolved the issues in dispute and filed Minutes of Settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order lifting the temporary suspension and allowing the appellant to continue its registration, subject to strict conditions regarding financial reporting, working capital maintenance, and trust account reconciliations.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed medical reports indicating the appellant suffered from dementia and had failed a functional driving assessment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's cognitive impairment was likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and confirmed the licence suspension.

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

The appellant, whose licence was suspended for dangerous driving, drove his vehicle to a work site and was involved in a collision.

The Tribunal found that the appellant was the suspended driver and the only person suffering financial loss from the impoundment.

Under section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98, exceptional hardship must be suffered by someone other than the suspended driver.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that it would result in exceptional hardship.

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

The Tribunal found that while the impoundment caused financial and emotional stress, the appellant and her husband had access to two other vehicles.

Because an alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle, which was seized after her spouse was caught driving it without a licence and without an ignition interlock device.

The appellant argued the impoundment should only be for 7 days because the interlock condition on her spouse's licence had expired years earlier.

The Tribunal found that although the minimum period for the interlock condition had passed, the spouse had never applied to have it removed, meaning the condition remained active.

The 45-day impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle, which was impounded after he was caught driving without a required ignition interlock device.

The appellant argued that the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship and raised several statutory and procedural grounds.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal confirmed the impoundment, finding that alternate transportation was available to the appellant's family, negating the exceptional hardship claim.

The Tribunal also dismissed the other grounds, noting that they were either inapplicable or not permissible grounds for appeal under section 50.2(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant, a commercial driver, appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence on medical grounds following a single-vehicle accident.

Medical reports indicated the appellant was alcohol dependent and had a blood alcohol level over three times the legal limit at the time of the crash.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant is alcohol dependent and that this dependency is likely to interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend the licence, noting that while the appellant had completed a rehabilitation program, his doctor had not yet recommended reinstatement.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her commercial vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her employee was caught driving it in contravention of an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship due to financial losses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including renting a friend's truck and using a second commercial vehicle, and therefore failed to meet the statutory test for exceptional hardship.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle for driving while suspended, arguing exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle for work and to transport her children.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had borrowed a friend's vehicle and therefore had an alternative available.

As an alternative existed, the legal test for exceptional hardship under the Highway Traffic Act was not met.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse their registration as a motor vehicle dealer and salesperson.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants had traded in motor vehicles, specifically by leasing vehicles to consumers, while unregistered.

The Tribunal concluded that this past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the appellants 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 to refuse registration.

The appellants appealed the 45-day impoundment of their vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the vehicle was taken without consent by an unlicensed visiting cousin and that the co-owner, whose licence was suspended, was not the driver.

The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the co-owner with the suspended licence was indeed the driver, based on the police officer's identification and circumstantial evidence such as the driver wearing a construction vest, readily producing the ownership documents, and locking the steering wheel before fleeing.

The appeal was denied and the impoundment order was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The Registrar sought refusal on two grounds: the appellant's past criminal convictions for sexual offences involving minors, and a false statement on his application regarding past professional disciplinary action.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had sufficiently rehabilitated himself regarding his past criminal conduct.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant, a highly educated former teacher, knowingly made a false statement on his application by failing to disclose that his teaching certificate had been revoked.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.