7824 v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2013 CanLII 1975

Licence Tribunal

Appeal d'appel en

Tribunal matière de permis

DATE:

2013-01-17

FILE:

7824/MVIA

CASE NAME:

7824 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:

SONIA DE SANTIS, Agent

Heard by teleconference:

January 8, 2013

REASONS FOR DECISION

A hearing was held on January 8, 2013, by teleconference 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: 1994 Ford EPR (the “vehicle”)

Date of Appeal: December 19, 2012

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. The Notice of Appeal, the Applicant pleads for the return of the vehicle on the ground that she lives 20 Kilometers out of town and needs the vehicle to commute to and from her regular medical appointments required after shoulder surgery. The Applicant further states that she will be unable to cover the cost of the impoundment.

The Applicant testified that she was aware of the suspension, nonetheless she asked her boyfriend to drive her to a follow up medical appointment as she could neither drive nor afford the cost of a taxi.

In cross-examination, the Applicant confirmed that she is on the Ontario Works Plan (social assistance), and that she was able to obtain rides to all her medical appointments through the Community Care program. With respect to groceries and other needs, the Applicant has received assistance from her neighbours to drive her where needed.

The Applicant testified that her boyfriend will try to borrow the money from his parents, but since he is on social assistance himself, it is not likely that he will be able to cover the cost of the impoundment.

According to the Applicant there are 911 services in the area.

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:

1. 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;

2. 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;

3. Copy of the Notice forwarded to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles regarding the impoundment;

4. Copy of the Ministry of Transportation records indicating that the driver at the time of impoundment had been convicted of Blood/Alcohol in Excess of 0.8 under the Criminal Code of Canada pursuant to which the driver’s licence of the driver was then under suspension for life.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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, 3^rd 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 only asked her boyfriend to drive because it was “an emergency.” The Applicant was adamant that she will never allow him to drive again.

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 there are alternative modes of transportation available to the Applicant. In this matter the Applicant has alternative modes of transportation in that she has been able obtain rides from her neighbours and Community Care. No medical appointments have been missed nor will be missed as the Applicant has attested that Community Care has acquiesced to driving her to her next medical appointment.

With respect to financial loss, the Registrar’s Agent maintains that there has been no loss of income, as the Applicant is on Ontario Works. According to the Registrar’s Agent, the only loss is the impoundment fee; nonetheless the law does provide for recovery by the owner from the suspended driver.

In summary the Registrar’s Agent concluded that there are no health and safety issues as 911 service is available in her area,

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, as follows:

10. (1) In determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an order to impound under section 55.1 of the Act, the Tribunal shall consider whether no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle is available…

Only if no alternative exists does the Regulation permit the Tribunal to proceed to consider other enumerated factors.

It is clear from the evidence that alternative modes of transportation are available to the Applicant. Albeit inconvenient, the Applicant has been getting to all her medical appointments with the assistance of Community Care. Daily needs are also being met with the assistance of neighbours.

Thus, having found that an alternative to the impounded vehicle exists, the Tribunal’s enquiry must come to an end and the Applicant’s defence of exceptional hardship must fail.

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: January 17, 2013