Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
DATE:
2013-10-17
FILE:
8336/MVIA
CASE NAME:
8336 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 Applicant:
Self-represented
For the Respondent:
RUSSELL MCKNIGHT, Agent
Heard in Toronto:
October 8, 2013
REASONS FOR DECISION
A hearing was held on October 8, 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”).
Pursuant to section 50.2 (5) the Tribunal CONFIRMS THE IMPOUNDMENT. 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: 2010 KIA SOU (the “vehicle”)
Date of Appeal: September 16, 2013
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 motor vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded, that the vehicle owner exercised due diligence (i.e. all reasonable efforts) to determine that the driver's licence was not suspended and that the loss of the vehicle will result in exceptional hardship, all as provided in sections 50.2(3)(a) (c) 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 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 in respect of which the vehicle was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension?
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 knowledge or consent by her neighbour. The Applicant further states that the incident has caused exceptional hardship in that she needs the vehicle to take her children to the different schools they attend and to get to and from different jobs.
During the hearing, the Applicant reiterated her comments in the Notice of Appeal, testifying that as she had done in the past, she allowed her neighbour to drive after attending a function together.
According to the Applicant she has known the suspended driver for seven years and has allowed him to drive on several occasions, not being aware of his driving history.
The Applicant affirmed that after dropping her at home, the neighbour left with her keys without her permission. She asserted that she has difficulty paying her bills and needs her car to get around.
In cross-examination, the Applicant confirmed:
- she actually saw the suspended driver’s licence about two months ago; the licence had his picture but she is not sure it had his name;
- she did not notice the expiry date on the licence;
- she had no reason to believe he did not have a valid licence as he had owned a car before;
- the suspended driver has driven the Applicant’s car before but never without her;
- although he never asked to borrow the car, the suspended driver was never specifically told he could not drive the car without the presence of the Applicant;
- on the night he took the keys, after they come back from a restaurant, she was in the bathroom when her neighbour left;
- she gets a ride to the group home, where she works part-time and uses public transportation to get back home;
- the children are also taking public transit to get to school;
- she has avoided talking to the suspended driver and has not approached