Licence Appeal Tribunal
File: 7556/MVIA
Case Name: 7556 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: 7556
-and-
Respondent: Registrar of Motor Vehicles
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Antoine Aouad, M.D., Member
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Frances Ilari, Agent
Heard in Toronto by teleconference: August 23, 2012
REASONS FOR DECISION
A teleconference hearing was held on August 23, 2012, at Toronto, to consider the Applicant's appeal pursuant to section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "Act").
THE TRIBUNAL RULED TO CONFIRM THE IMPOUNDMENT pursuant to section 55.1(3) of the Act. 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: 2008 MERZ C30 (the "vehicle")
Date of Appeal: August 3, 2012
The matter came before this Tribunal on August 23, 2012, and proceeded as a teleconference (electronic) hearing.
All documents were entered into evidence as exhibits with the consent of both parties.
ISSUES
As set out in the Applicant's Notice of Appeal (Exhibit #1), the owner appeals on the basis that the loss of the vehicle will result in exceptional hardship, as provided in subsection 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 handwritten letter, dated August 3, 2012, the Applicant pleads for the return of the vehicle on the ground that loss of the vehicle will cause immense distress as the vehicle is required to transport his children to their various activities.
Attached to the Notice of Appeal, the Applicant provided letters from his ex-spouse, his employer, his son, and the dance director from the studio his son attends.
The Applicant testified that the vehicle is needed in order for his older daughter to drive her siblings to their activities and for her to attend physiotherapy.
In cross-examination, the Applicant attested that he was the primary person driving his children to all activities, until his suspension. His daughter became the primary driver except for the one time when he was stopped.
The Registrar's Agent questioned the Applicant as to vehicles that are registered to his ex-spouse. The Applicant asserted that all the vehicles are needed for different purposes.
The Applicant has been driven by one of his workers, but the children are missing some of their activities.
Since the Applicant lives in the Toronto area, the Registrar's Agent suggested that bus and taxi service are available. The Applicant responded that the bus is not feasible and the cost of taxis prohibitive.
The Applicant testified that he is paying off his mortgage as well as his other debts.
According to the Applicant, his daughter was involved in an accident and is in need of physiotherapy once or twice a week, but he does not know if any appointments have been missed.
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