Licence Appeal Tribunal
FILE: 7915/MVIA
CASE NAME: 7915 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: Self-represented
For the Respondent: JAY SHANMORGAN, Agent; SONIA DE SANTIS, Agent
Heard by teleconference: March 7, 2013
REASONS FOR DECISION
A hearing was held on March 7, 2013, 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 ORDERED THE REGISTRAR TO RELEASE THE MOTOR VEHICLE pursuant to section 50.2(5) of the HTA.
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: 2009 CHEV M/Z (the “vehicle”)
Date of Appeal: February 19, 2013
As a preliminary matter the Tribunal questioned the Applicant regarding the apparent contradiction in the written submissions, which would suggest due diligence as the ground of appeal rather than exceptional hardship which was selected. The Applicant refused to amend the Notice of Appeal, confirming that he wished to proceed solely on the ground of exceptional hardship.
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 the Notice of Appeal, the Applicant pleads for the return of the vehicle on the ground that he gave the care and control to a licenced driver and that unknown to him the suspended driver moved the vehicle. The Applicant adds that he is unable to walk as he is disabled; the vehicle is required for the Applicant to obtain the necessities of life. Further according to the Applicant he is under the poverty level and cannot afford cabs.
The Applicant testified as to the circumstances that led the vehicle to be impounded.
In cross-examination, the Applicant confirmed that since the impoundment he has “been stuck at home”, he felt lucky enough that a couple of neighbours have taken him to the grocery stores twice. The Applicant is receiving Ontario Disability Support Payments, which does not allow for cabs, since last year’s T5 shows $10,000.00.
The Applicant affirmed that he is expecting the suspended driver will provide financial restitution once the vehicle is returned.
The Registrar’s Agent explained to the Applicant that the Ontario Disability Support Plan provides for extra funding for incidentals such as alternative transportation. The Applicant stated that he was aware that Community Care provided transportation for medical appointments but was not aware that the ODSP covered extra transportation expenses.
According to the Applicant, there are 911 services in the area and there are no medical appointments expected until next year.
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