Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en Tribunal matière de permis
DATE: 2014-09-18
FILE: 9064/MVIA
CASE NAME: 9064 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.
Appellant Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Antoine A. Aouad, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent
Heard by teleconference: September 9, 2014
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
A hearing was held on September 9, 2014, in Toronto to consider the Appellant’s appeal pursuant to section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, Chap. H.8 as amended (the “Act”). The Tribunal has reviewed the evidence and submissions and makes the following Order:
Pursuant to section 50.2 (5) the Tribunal CONFIRMS THE IMPOUNDMENT. As a result the Appellant’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: Appellant
Motor Vehicle: 2000 HOND USE (the “vehicle”)
Date of Appeal: August 15, 2014
By way of preliminary matter, the Registrar’s Agent sought to enter a vehicle search record. Given that the document was submitted outside the time for disclosure the Tribunal did not admit the document into evidence.
All other documents were entered into evidence as exhibits with the consent of both parties.
ISSUES
As set out in the Appellant’s request for hearing (Exhibit #2), the owner appeals on the basis 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)(c) and (d) of the Act.
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 Appellant
A summary of the Appellant’s evidence follows.
The Appellant’s written submission filed with the Tribunal in support of the appeal was entered as Exhibit # 2. In the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant states that she had no idea the person she allowed to drive her vehicle did not have a valid driver’s licence. According to the Appellant, he lied to her when he assured her that he had his driver’s licence. He had offered to drive her vehicle, because she felt too tired to drive. The Appellant further stated that she is a grade 12 student with a part-time job and needs the car to carry on her job, without the car she cannot afford the costs of the impoundment.
During the hearing, the Appellant stated that the suspended driver “promised” her he had a valid driver’s licence. The Appellant affirmed that she did not ask to see the licence.
In cross-examination, the Appellant testified that her parents have been driving her to work and to school; at times, she also takes the city bus.
Evidence for the Registrar
A summary of the Registrar’s evidence follows.
The documents tendered by the Registrar and admitted into the record on consent of the Appellant were as follows:
Copy of the Ministry of Transportation records indicating that, among other things, the impounded motor vehicle is registered in the name of the Appellant as owner;
A copy of the notice prepared by the police officer who detained the impounded motor vehicle indicating, among other things, that the vehicle at the time it was detained was being driven by the person convicted of the offence under the Criminal Code of Canada outlined in point 4 below;
Copy of the Notice forwarded to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles regarding the impoundment;
Copy of the Ministry of Transportation records indicating that the driver at the time of impoundment had been convicted of “Fail To Stop For Police Officer” under the Criminal Code of Canada pursuant to which the driver’s licence of the driver was then under suspension until March 6, 2015.
The Registrar called no other evidence.
LAW
Section 55.1 of the Act provides that a motor vehicle may be detained and impounded, and section 50.2 provides the motor vehicle owner’s right of appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal on the appeal may, pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the Act, confirm the impoundment or order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle. Pursuant to subsection 50.2(8), the decision of the Tribunal is final and binding.
Subsection 55.1(3) of the Act states:
(3) A motor vehicle detained under subsection (1) shall be impounded as follows:
For 45 days, if there has not been any previous impoundment under this section, within a prescribed period, with respect to any motor vehicle then owned by the owner of the vehicle currently being impounded.
For 90 days, if there has been one previous impoundment under this section, within a prescribed period, with respect to any motor vehicle then owned by the owner of the vehicle currently being impounded.
For 180 days, if there have been two or more previous impoundments under this section, within a prescribed period, with respect to any motor vehicle then owned by the owner of the vehicle currently being impounded.
Regulation 631/98 provides that the prescribed period, referred to above, is two years.
The owner may appeal the impoundment on only four specific grounds set out in subsection 50.2(3):
(3) The only grounds on which an owner may appeal under subsection (1) and the only grounds on which the Tribunal may order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle are,
(a) that the motor vehicle that is impounded was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded;
(b) that the driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension;
(c) 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 it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension; or
(d) that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
The Appellant here appeals on the basis of sections 50.2(3) (c) and (d).
Issue 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?
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 3rd ed. provides the definition of “due diligence” as follows:
Due: A. adj. 1. That is owing or payable, as a debt. 2. Belonging or falling to by right. 3. That ought to be given or rendered; merited. 4. Such as ought to be; fitting; proper; rightful. 5. Such as is requisite or necessary; adequate. 6. To be ascribed or attributed; owing to, caused by, in consequence of. 7. Under engagement or contract to be ready or arrive (at a defined time).
Diligence: 1. The quality of being diligent; industry, assiduity. 2. Speed, dispatch. 3. Careful attention, heedfulness, caution. 4. Law. The attention and care due from a person in a given situation....
Also, “due diligence” in Black’s Law Dictionary (sixth edition) at page 457 is defined as follows:
Due diligence: Such a measure of prudence, activity, or assiduity, as is properly to be expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a reasonable and prudent man under the particular circumstances; not measured by any absolute standard, but depending on the relative facts of the special case.
Issue Should the Tribunal order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle on the basis that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship?
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed. defines “exceptional hardship” as follows:
Exceptional: Of the nature of or forming an exception; unusual.
Hardship: 1. The quality of being hard to bear; hardness; severity. 2. Hardness of fate or circumstance; severe toil or suffering; extreme privation.
Also, where the owner appeals on the ground of exceptional hardship, subsection 50.2(4) provides:
(4) Clause (3) (d) does not apply if there was a previous impoundment under section 55.1 with respect to any motor vehicle then owned by the same owner.
Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 provides the criteria to be considered and those not to be considered in determining the appeal under this section. First, the Tribunal must consider whether no alternative exists for the impounded vehicle, and if there is no alternative, then whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle or a threat to public health and safety or to the environment or property of a community in whose service the vehicle is ordinarily used.
The section also provides that the Tribunal may not, except in certain circumstances, consider:
- financial or economic loss to any person,
- loss of employment or employment opportunity to any person, or
- loss of education or training.
These factors may be considered only if the owner demonstrates all of the following:
- there is no alternative to the vehicle available,
- the loss will be immediate, significant and lasting,
- the impact will be on a person ordinarily transported by the vehicle, and
- the impact of the loss will be on someone other than the suspended driver and will not be the result of a loss by the suspended driver of the type described above.
The regulation states that the Tribunal cannot consider inconvenience to any person as being exceptional hardship.
All elements of the grounds of appeal must be proven on the balance of probabilities by the owner of the vehicle.
APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS
In closing, the Appellant reiterated her comments on the Notice of Appeal, emphasizing she understands that she made a mistake by not asking to see the licence of the person she allowed to drive her vehicle. Further, she noted that as a high school student she cannot afford the cost of the impoundment.
The Registrar’s Agent maintains that there is no doubt the driver was under suspension.
With regards to exceptional hardship, the Registrar’s Agent noted that the Appellant has alternative transportation available to her, albeit inconvenient; her parents have been driving her and as well there is public transportation available to her.
The Registrar’s Agent pointed out that with respect to costs of the impoundment, section 55.1 (27) of the Act, states that an owner may bring an action to recover the costs against a suspended driver, thus, the Tribunal is precluded from considering the costs of the impoundment.
With respect to due diligence, the Registrar’s Agent maintained that the Appellant allowed the suspended driver to take control of the vehicle without verifying the validity of his driver’s licence, thus due diligence was not exercised.
The onus is on the Appellant to establish her grounds of appeal as provided in section 50.2(3) of the Act.
The Tribunal concurs with the Registrar’s Agent that evidence shows that the person having care and control of the vehicle at the time of impoundment did not in fact have a valid driver’s licence.
The Tribunal will look first to the due diligence ground for appeal. The Appellant admitted to giving care and control of her vehicle to the suspended driver, simply on his word that he had a valid driver’s licence. Although, the Tribunal is not of the mind that contacting the Ministry is essential for verification, it is incumbent upon an owner to at least examine the licence of the person she allows to drive her vehicle. Thus, the Tribunal finds that the ground of due diligence under section 50.2(3)(c) is not met.
Section 10 of Regulation 631/98 provides the criteria to be considered and those not to be considered in determining exceptional hardship:
- (1) In determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an order to impound under section 55.1 of the Act, the Tribunal shall consider whether no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle is available…
Only if no alternative transportation exists does the Regulation permit the Tribunal to proceed to consider other enumerated factors. The evidence is clear that the Appellant not only has access to public transportation, but also her parents have been driving her to school and to work. Thus, the Tribunal’s enquiry must come to an end and the Appellant’s defence of exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act must fail.
DECISION
After considering the evidence, pursuant to the authority vested in the Tribunal under section 50.2(5) of the Act, the Tribunal confirms the impoundment of the Appellant’s motor vehicle, and it will remain at the impound facility for 45 days.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Dr. Antoine A. Aouad, Member
Released: September 18, 2014