Licence Appeal Tribunal
FILE: 7793/MVIA
CASE NAME: 7793 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: 7793
-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: SONIA DE SANTIS, Agent
Heard in Toronto: December 20, 2012
REASONS FOR DECISION
A hearing was held on December 20, 2012, in person 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 55.1(3) 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: 2001 CADI DFW (the “vehicle”)
Date of Appeal: December 4, 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 Applicant appeals on the basis that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded and that the loss of the vehicle will result in exceptional hardship, all as provided in sections 50.2(3)(a) and (d) of the Act.
Should the Tribunal order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle on the basis that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time the vehicle was detained in order to be impounded?
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 wrote that the vehicle was taken without consent. The Applicant attached an Affidavit commissioned by a Justice of the Peace in Toronto, attesting to the fact that he did not give anyone permission to drive his vehicles.
During the hearing, the Applicant testified that his son took the car without permission while the Applicant was at work. Upon arriving home, the Applicant found the car missing and called the police. According to the Applicant, he has told his son several times not to drive the car, in fact he has hidden the keys from his son, and does not know where the son got the key.
The Applicant attested that he does not have the money to retrieve the car. The Applicant is concerned that this is the second car that has been impounded because of his son’s actions, which he feels he cannot control.
In cross-examination, the Applicant confirmed that he does not have the money to have the car released from the impoundment facility.
The Registrar’s Agent reviewed the suspended driver’s conviction record with the Applicant and asked how his son obtained the keys to the car. According to the Applicant he believes that his son had copies of the keys made without the parents’ knowledge.
The Applicant confirmed that he could not press charges, against his own son, as he did not want him to go to jail.
The Registrar’s Agent asked that the Applicant clarify the ownership of other vehicles registered to the Applicant. The Applicant confirmed that he owns the Honda Accord. As far as alternate transportation, the Applicant