Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
DATE:
2014-10-28
FILE:
9155/MVIA
CASE NAME:
9155 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:
October 21, 2014
REASONS FOR DECISION
A motion hearing was held on October 21, 2014, by teleconference, to consider the Appellant’s motion, dated October 15, 2014, for an extension of time for the filing of his appeal of the impoundment of his motor vehicle pursuant to section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal gave an oral decision denying the motion, with written reasons to follow. These are the reasons.
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 Appellant
Motor Vehicle: 2006 CHRY 30C (the “vehicle”)
Date of Appeal: October 14, 2014
The Appellant’s vehicle was impounded on September 7, 2014. 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 Appellant therefore had until September 22, 2014 to file an appeal. The Appellant’s appeal was prepared on October 13, 2014, and received by the Tribunal on October 14, 2014. A Notice of 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, was received by the Tribunal on October 15, 2014.
The grounds for an extension as presented by the Appellant in his written submissions are as follows:
the Appellant was unaware of the fifteen day time limitation to file an appeal;
the Appellant, being computer illiterate, was therefore unable to obtain the proper appeal forms without the assistance of a friend; and
the Appellant attended the “Licence Bureau, Drive Test” office and was unable to obtain appeal forms.
At the hearing, the Appellant reiterated the information provided in his Notice of Motion.
The Appellant acknowledged having been shown the paperwork given to the suspended driver regarding the impoundment, as well as having been advised by the police officer to call the Tribunal’s number should he wish to appeal. The Appellant could not remember how long after the impoundment he called the number given to him by the police officer. Initially, the Appellant suggested it might have been a couple of days after the impoundment, however, he subsequently admitted that it might have been 25-days. The Appellant thought he had to wait until the forty-five days had “almost” elapsed to file the appeal. According to the Appellant, after speaking to Tribunal staff and being advised to file “immediately” it still took a couple of days for him to find the forms.
The Registrar’s Agent opposed the motion, arguing that the Appellant contradicted his statements as to when he actually called the Tribunal, thus his evidence, the Agent submitted, is rendered suspect. The Appellant waited 37-days to file the appeal, which denotes that there was no sense of urgency.
Section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. G, 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 making its decision, the Tribunal has been guided by the following four factors for consideration on a motion for extension of time:
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 Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was filed over a month after the vehicle was impounded. By his own admission, the Appellant was duly informed of the number to call in order to appeal. He did not take any steps to appeal for a considerable period of time; the appeal was filed approximately one week before the 45-day impoundment was to expire. The Tribunal, on the evidence, cannot conclude that there was a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed time period.
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 Appellant if unsuccessful or by the Registrar if he is successful. The 37-day delay, and the consequent prejudice 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, there is little set out there to support setting aside the impoundment. The Appellant states that he allowed the suspended driver to take the vehicle for a “test drive”. The driver told him that he had a driver’s licence, but the Appellant took no steps to ensure the validity of the suspended driver’s licence. The Appellant also states that the cost of the impoundment will cause him exceptional hardship. However, as the Tribunal is precluded by section 10 of O.Reg 631/98 from considering the cost of the impoundment, the Tribunal would not be able to rule in favour of the Appellant on the grounds of exceptional hardship.
The Tribunal finds that the Appellant 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
Dr. Antoine A. Aouad, Member
RELEASED: October 28, 2014