Licence Appeal Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en matière de permis
FILE: 8483/MVIA
CASE NAME: 8483 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.
8483 Applicant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Mary Ann Spencer, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Sonia De Santis, Agent
Heard in Toronto: December 18, 2013
REASONS FOR DECISION
A hearing was held on December 18, 2013, at Toronto, 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: 2001 PTRB CON (the “vehicle”)
Date of Appeal: December 4, 2013
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
The hearing in this matter was scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. by teleconference. At the time scheduled for the hearing, the Applicant did not join the conference and the hearing was adjourned and Tribunal staff were asked to try to contact the Applicant. The Applicant responded to a telephone message and informed staff that he was unaware of the scheduled teleconference, notwithstanding the fact that the Notice of Hearing had been couriered to his proper address. He subsequently joined the teleconference and the hearing continued at approximately 10 a.m.
The Applicant’s vehicle was impounded on November 5, 2013. Section 9 of Ontario Regulation 631/98 states:
An appeal to the Tribunal under section 50.2 of the Act with respect to the impoundment of a motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Act shall be commenced by filing with the Tribunal a notice of appeal, together with the fee established by the Tribunal, within 15 days after the day the vehicle was detained under subsection 55.1 (1) of the Act.
The Applicant therefore had until November 19, 2013 to file an appeal. The Applicant’s appeal was filed on December 4, 2013 together with a motion for an extension of the time period in which to file the appeal pursuant to section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. G, which states:
Despite any limitation of time fixed by or under any Act for the giving of any notice requiring a hearing by the Tribunal or an appeal from a decision or order of the Tribunal under section 11 or any other Act, if the Tribunal is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for applying for the extension and for granting relief, it may,
(a) extend the time for giving the notice either before or after the expiration of the limitation of time so limited; and
(b) give the directions that it considers proper as a result of extending the time.
In this case, the Applicant is the suspended driver. He confirmed that when the vehicle was impounded, the police officer gave him a copy of the ‘Notice to Registrar’ (Exhibit 1), a two sided form which sets out information with respect to the right of appeal on its back. The Applicant stated that he did not read the information but the police officer did advise him that he could get his vehicle back before the end of the 45 day impoundment period. Therefore the Applicant went to a Service Ontario office intending to “get the vehicle out”. He was advised by Service Ontario staff that he could not in fact get the vehicle back and therefore he decided to “give up”. However, approximately a week later, he telephoned the police officer who repeated his initial advice. A further week later, on Friday November 22, 2013, the Applicant again went to the Service Ontario office. He subsequently completed the required Notice of Appeal which he signed on November 25, 2013 (Exhibit 3). In completing the Notice of Appeal, he learned that he had only 15 days in which to file it. He therefore telephoned the Tribunal and was advised by staff that he would need to file a Notice of Motion for an extension of the time in which to file the appeal. On December 4, 2013, the Notice of Appeal was received by the Tribunal together with the Notice of Motion dated December 2, 2013 (Exhibit 2).
The Applicant lives in a large municipality but works in a remote area some 300 kilometres from that municipality. He indicated that because he is out of town he does not always see his mail in a timely manner. Asked by the Agent for the Registrar to explain the delays in submitting the required information to the Tribunal once he had received the correct advice, the Applicant stated he was “busy”.
In making its decision, the Tribunal has been guided by the four part test for reasonable grounds to grant a motion for extension of time. These are:
- That there was a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit;
- The length of the delay;
- That there is not prejudice to the Registrar; and
- The merits of the appeal.
The Applicant’s Notice of Appeal was filed fifteen days late and thirty days after the vehicle was impounded. By his own admission, the Applicant did not read the information provided on the Notice to Registrar which sets out the time frames for filing an appeal. It is not clear to the Tribunal whether the Applicant was misinformed or if he did not understand what he was told by staff when he first contacted the Service Ontario office. However, he clearly did understand what he needed to do after his second contact with that office. The Applicant was not able to provide the Tribunal with specific dates of his various contacts with the police officer or the Service Ontario staff. However, he did state that he waited a week after his first contact with Service Ontario before he called the police officer. And he waited a further week after he was aware of the correct process before filing his appeal and the Notice of Motion. While the Tribunal understands that the Applicant is often away from home due to work, the primary reason he offered for these delays was that he was ‘busy’. The apparent lack of a sense of urgency suggests that the Applicant was not overly concerned with filing the appeal. This is reinforced by the fact that the Applicant also apparently failed to read the Notice of Hearing that was sent by courier to his home address.
The fact that the Notice of Appeal was received some 30 days after the vehicle was impounded and that the Registrar could be responsible for significant costs if the Applicant were to be successful in an appeal represents prejudice to the Registrar.
With respect to the merits of the appeal, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant’s driver’s licence is suspended and that he was driving the vehicle at the time it was impounded. On his Notice of Appeal, he indicated that the vehicle is used in his nascent business and that he would sustain some business losses. However, during this hearing, he also indicated that he is still working, and is being driven to the remote area by friends. Section 10(3) of Ontario Regulation 631/98 specifically precludes the consideration of financial or economic loss by the suspended driver. Therefore, the appeal would have little reasonable chance of success.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has failed to establish reasonable grounds for an extension of time to file his appeal and therefore the motion is denied and the vehicle will remain impounded until the expiry of the impoundment period.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_______________________
Mary Ann Spencer, Presiding Member
RELEASED: December 24, 2013