Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en Tribunal matière de permis
FILE: 8516/MVIA
CASE NAME: 8516 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: SANJAY KAPUR, Agent
Heard by teleconference: January 3 & 10, 2014
REASONS FOR DECISION
A hearing was held on January 3 & 10, 2014, 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: 2002 HOND CRV (the “vehicle”)
Date of Appeal: December 18, 2013
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
The hearing in this matter was scheduled to commence at 1:30 p.m. on January 3, 2014 by teleconference. After the commencement of the hearing, the call dropped and the Tribunal lost contact with the Applicant.
Several attempts to reconnect were unsuccessful, therefore, the hearing was adjourned and resumed on January 10, 2014.
The Applicant’s vehicle was impounded on November 25, 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 December 10, 2013 to file an appeal. The Applicant’s appeal was filed on December 18, 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 written submissions presented by the Applicant as grounds for an extension are as follows:
the Applicant was originally told that she could speak to a Justice of the Peace and have her vehicle released within 7 days;
she was subsequently told to file a Notice of Motion to have the vehicle released, which she did, and a court date was set for December 2nd, 2014. At the time set for the hearing, the Applicant was informed by Duty Counsel that she has filed the wrong documents and was in the wrong court.
the Duty Counsel provided the Applicant with the information to file an appeal but according to the Applicant she decided that she “wouldn’t appeal, that it would take more time and money” added to the days she had already lost of work.
it was not until after her vehicle was damaged at the impound lot and she found out the cost of the impoundment that the Applicant decided to file an appeal.
At the hearing, the Applicant reiterated the information provided in the grounds for the motion for extension of time.
The Applicant acknowledges having been shown the paperwork given to the suspended driver regarding the impoundment. The Applicant also acknowledged receipt of the Notice to Impound from the Ministry of Transportation, and admits to reading the front but “did not bother” to read the back which contains the information regarding the appeal process.
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;
Prejudice to the other party; and
The merits of the appeal.
The Applicant’s Notice of Appeal was filed a week late and almost a month after the vehicle was impounded. By her 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. Although the Applicant initially tried to contest the impoundment, she unfortunately went to the wrong forum. The Applicant was given the information package by the Duty Counsel on December 2nd, which was still well within the time for appeal. She was told about filing an appeal with the Licence Appeal Tribunal, but the Applicant fully admitted to having no intention to appeal. It appears that the Applicant’s decision to appeal came after an incident at the impound lot and after finding out the cost of the impoundment.
Regarding the length of the delay and the prejudice to the other party, the Registrar, the Tribunal is mindful of the fact that the impoundment period is 45 days. A delay in appealing becomes significant when a proceeding must, by its nature, be expedited. Costs accrue on a daily basis and must be paid by an applicant if unsuccessful or by the Registrar if she is successful. The 8 day delay, in this instance, is a significant factor for the Tribunal’s consideration.
Finally, regarding the merits of appeal, in reviewing the reasons for appeal set out in the Notice of Appeal and the fact that the 45 day impoundment period in fact expired on January 9, 2014, it appears that alternatives to the Applicant’s vehicle have been found. Any basis for exceptional hardship is further weakened by the fact that it was only after the vehicle was damaged while impounded, that the Applicant decided to pursue the appeal.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has failed to establish reasonable grounds for an extension of time to file her appeal and therefore the motion is denied and the vehicle will remain impounded until the expiry of the impoundment period.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Antoine Aouad, M.D, Presiding Member
RELEASED: January 16, 2014