Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
DATE:
2012-03-19
FILE:
7243/MVIA
CASE NAME:
7243 v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Appeal under Section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 from an Impoundment Pursuant to Section 55.1(3) of the Act.
Applicant
Applicant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
ANTOINE AOUAD, M.D. Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicants:
APPLICANT, Self represented
For the Respondent:
RUSSELL MCKNIGHT, representing the Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Heard in location:
Toronto, ON
REASONS FOR DECISION
A hearing was held on March 14, 2012, at Toronto, Ontario, to consider the Applicant’s appeal pursuant to section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA” or the “Act”).
THE TRIBUNAL RULED TO CONFIRM THE IMPOUNDMENT pursuant to section 55.1(3) of the HTA. As a result the Applicant’s motor vehicle will remain detained at the impound facility for 45 days.
BACKGROUND
A motor vehicle was impounded pursuant to section 55.1 of the Act and the impoundment was appealed by the owner. The owner, motor vehicle, and date of appeal in this matter are as follows:
Owner: The Applicant
Motor Vehicle: 1999 Acura C1S (the “vehicle”)
Date of Appeal: 28 February 2012
The matter came before this Tribunal on March 14, 2012 and proceeded as an electronic (teleconference) hearing.
By way of preliminary matters the Registrar’s Agent advised the Tribunal that the Applicant had not received the documents couriered to her. The Applicant opted to proceed.
All documents were entered into evidence as exhibits with the consent of both parties
ISSUES
As set out in the Applicant’s request for hearing (Exhibit #1), the owner appeals on the basis that the loss of the vehicle will result in exceptional hardship, as provided in section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.
Should the Tribunal order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle on the basis that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship?
FACTS
Evidence for the Applicant
A summary of the Applicant’s evidence follows.
The Applicant’s written submission filed with the Tribunal in support of the appeal was entered as Exhibit #1. In a typewritten letter, dated February 27th, 2012, the Applicant pleads for the return of the vehicle on the ground that she cannot afford the expense of the impoundment as well as the cost of a cab to take her child to daycare.
Attached to the Notice of Appeal the Applicant provided a copy of an Income Tax Return for the year 2010; a Judge’s Memorandum of Probation Conditions, showing a conditional discharge with probation for one year; an order prohibiting the Applicant from driving for a period of “1 year”.
At the hearing the Applicant testified that she is appealing, as she believed her licence was suspended for the same period as the probation, which was one year. The Applicant asserted that since her licence was returned to her when she was discharged from probation, she assumed she was able to drive. Now she understands that the suspension is for three years.
The Applicant reiterated her comments on the Notice of Appeal, emphasizing that she is a single mother who cannot afford the impoundment fee.
In cross-examination, the Registrar’s Agent quoted the prohibition order reminding the Applicant that regardless of the Judge’s Order the Province of Ontario may suspend the licence for a further period. The Applicant claims that she was in the midst of too many personal issues, and she did not contact the Ministry about her change of address, nor was she aware that her licence had expired.
The Applicant confirmed that although she will not be able to drive until September, she wants the car back as she is not able to afford the cost of impoundment. She is also considering selling the car, so that she can get some money to offset transportation costs until September.
Evidence for the Registrar
A summary of the Registrar’s evidence follows.
The documents tendered by the Registrar and admitted into the record on consent of the Applicant were as follows:
Copy of the Ministry of Transportation records indicating that, among other things, the impounded motor vehicle is registered in the name of the Applicant as owner;
A copy of the notice prepared by the officer who detained the impounded motor vehicle indicating, among other things, that the vehicle at the time it was detained was being driven by the person convicted of the offence under the Criminal Code of Canada outlined in point 4 below;
Copy of the Notice forwarded to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles regarding the impoundment;
Copy of the Ministry of Transportation records indicating that the driver at the time of impoundment had been convicted of Dangerous Driving under the Criminal Code of Canada pursuant to which the driver’s licence of the driver was then under suspension until September 16, 2012.
The Registrar did not call any witnesses.
LAW
Section 55.1 of the Act provides that a motor vehicle may be detained and impounded, and section 50.2 provides the motor vehicle owner’s right of appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal on the appeal may, pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the Act, confirm the impoundment or order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle. Pursuant to subsection 50.2(8), the decision of the Tribunal is, final and binding.
Subsection 55.1(3) of the Act states:
(3) A motor vehicle detained under subsection (1) shall be impounded as follows:
For 45 days, if there has not been any previous impoundment under this section, within a prescribed period, with respect to any motor vehicle then owned by the owner of the vehicle currently being impounded.
For 90 days, if there has been one previous impoundment under this section, within a prescribed period, with respect to any motor vehicle then owned by the owner of the vehicle currently being impounded.
For 180 days, if there have been two or more previous impoundments under this section, within a prescribed period, with respect to any motor vehicle then owned by the owner of the vehicle currently being impounded.
Regulation 631/98 provides that the prescribed period, referred to above, is two years.
The owner may appeal the impoundment on only four specific grounds set out in subsection 50.2(3):
(3) The only grounds on which an owner may appeal under subsection (1) and the only grounds on which the Tribunal may order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle are,
(a) that the motor vehicle that is impounded was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded;
(b) that the driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension;
(c) that the owner of the motor vehicle exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension; or
(d) that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
The Applicant here appeals on the basis of section 50.2(3)(d).
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed. defines “exceptional hardship” as follows:
Exceptional: Of the nature of or forming an exception; unusual.
Hardship: 1. The quality of being hard to bear; hardness; severity. 2. Hardness of fate or circumstance; severe toil or suffering; extreme privation.
Also, where the owner appeals on the ground of exceptional hardship, subsection 50.2(4) provides:
(4) Clause (3) (d) does not apply if there was a previous impoundment under section 55.1 with respect to any motor vehicle then owned by the same owner.
Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 provides the criteria to be considered and those not to be considered in determining the appeal under this section. First, the Tribunal must consider whether no alternative exists for the impounded vehicle and if there is no alternative, then whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle or a threat to public health and safety or to the environment or property of a community in whose service the vehicle is ordinarily used.
Second, the section provides that the Tribunal may not, except in certain circumstances, consider certain factors:
- inconvenience to any person, financial or economic loss to any person,
- loss of employment or employment opportunity to any person, or
- loss of education or training.
These factors may be considered if the owner demonstrates that
- there is no alternative to the vehicle available,
- the loss will be immediate, significant and lasting,
- the impact will be on a person ordinarily transported by the vehicle and
- the impact of the loss will be on someone other than the suspended driver and will not be the result of a loss by the suspended driver of the type described above.
All elements of the grounds of appeal must be proven on the balance of probabilities by the owner of the vehicle.
APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS
In closing, the Applicant noted that she was not purposely trying to break the law. At the time there were many issues going on in her life; now she wants the vehicle returned to her so that she can sell it.
In closing the Registrar’s Agent pointed out the vehicle was impounded correctly, and that exceptional hardship, as defined by the Regulation, was not met.
According to the Registrar’s Agent, the legislation is clear in that losses cannot be considered when the owner and the suspended driver are one and the same, as is the situation in this matter. Thus, according to the Registrar’s Agent the Tribunal is precluded from considering any losses that the Applicant may have incurred.
The onus is on the Applicant to establish exceptional hardship, as the ground of appeal, as provided in section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.
Section 10 of Regulation 631/98 provides the criteria to be considered and those not to be considered in determining the appeal under this section. The Tribunal may consider financial loss unless as set out in 10.3(d), the impact of the loss “will not be a result of a loss by the suspended driver”.
As the Applicant was at the time of impoundment the suspended driver, the appeal must fail.
The Tribunal cannot assess exceptional hardship based on the cost of impoundment as the legislation provides options for the recovery of losses.
As such the Tribunal finds that the criteria of Section 10 (1) of the Ontario Regulation 631/98 are not met.
DECISION
After considering the evidence, pursuant to the authority vested in the Tribunal under section 50.2(5) of the Act, the Tribunal confirms the impoundment of the Applicant’s motor vehicle, and it will remain at the impound facility for 45 days.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_______________________
Antoine Aouad, M.D., presiding Member
RELEASED: March 19, 2012