Licence Appeal Tribunal
File: 8051/MVIA
Case Name: 8051 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.
8051, Applicant -and- Registrar of Motor Vehicles, Respondent
Reasons for Decision and Order
Adjudicator: Patricia L. Cassidy, Vice-Chair
Appearances: For the Applicant: Self-represented For the Respondent: Russell McKnight, Counsel
Heard by teleconference: April 30, 2013
Reasons for Decision
A hearing was held on April 30, 2013, at Toronto, Ontario, 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").
Pursuant to section 50.2 (5) the Tribunal CONFIRMS THE IMPOUNDMENT.
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: 2007 Dodge Caliber (the "vehicle") Date of Appeal: April 30, 2013
As a preliminary matter, the Tribunal heard a motion by the Applicant for an Order granting an extension of time to allow the Applicant to file her appeal outside the legislated timeline. The facts are:
The Applicant receives her mail via a locked mail box on the side of the road and not from a Post Office box located in a postal outlet.
The keys to the mailbox were in the Applicant's vehicle which was impounded.
The Applicant obtained the keys from the vehicle at impound on April 16, 2013 and only then was able to access the mailbox where she found the Notice of Impound.
Upon accessing her mail box and obtaining the Notice of Impound, the Applicant completed a Notice of Appeal as well as the Notice of Motion to request an extension of time to file the appeal. These documents were signed on April 17, 2013 and she attempted to file same with the Licence Appeal Tribunal via facsimile transmission from the Collingwood Public Library.
The Applicant is coping with a marital separation, is under medical care for what she calls depression and was overwhelmed trying to cover all of the bases between getting herself to work, caring for her children and herself without the convenience of her vehicle.
The Tribunal noted that, on receipt of the keys for her mailbox and receiving the Notice of Impound in the mail, the Applicant did attempt to file her Notice of Appeal immediately. Accordingly, the motion was allowed and the Applicant was granted the requested time extension.
The hearing of the appeal proceeded.
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
The Applicant is a 46 year old single mother of 2 children who lent her vehicle to a 21 year old male who she has been assisting to find his way. The Applicant elaborated that this young man offered to drive the Applicant's car to pick up a friend for the Applicant. He was, in effect, doing her a favour and, the Applicant stated, it never occurred to her that he might offer to take her car if he didn't have a valid driver's licence. The driver does not reside with the Applicant and, although he recently obtained employment, it will be difficult for him to pay the Applicant the costs she has incurred as a result of his operation of her motor vehicle which resulted in it being impounded. The Applicant acknowledges that she could, conceivably, take the young man to court and try to obtain a judgment against him for the costs she has incurred over this incident, but she stated that it isn't likely he will be able to assist her in getting the car out of impound.
The Applicant testified that she resides in a small community and works, part time, in a town about 30 kilometres away from her home. There is no public transit between the communities where she lives and where she works and a taxi cab costs approximately $45.00 each way. Since her vehicle was impounded on March 16, 2013, the Applicant has managed to arrange rides to and from work most days and has missed work, due to lack of transportation, three times. Her evidence is that her employer is very understanding of her situation and her absences have not been an issue. Her evidence is that she works a total of 24 hours per week over a 5 day period; her shifts are from 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Fridays.
The Applicant is in the