Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
DATE:
2015-03-20
FILE:
9414/MVIA
CASE NAME:
9414 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
MOTION DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Geneviève Blais, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Julia Scorcia, Agent
Heard by teleconference:
March 19, 2015
REASONS FOR DECISION
A hearing was held on March 19, 2015, by teleconference, to consider the Appellant’s motion to extend the time for filing an appeal. The Appellant wishes to pursue an appeal pursuant to section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA” or 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.
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 Appellant
Motor Vehicle: 2004 GMC SIE (the “vehicle”)
Date of Appeal: February 26, 2015
THE MOTION
The Appellant’s vehicle was impounded on January 20, 2015. 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 time for filing an appeal to this Tribunal expired on February 4, 2015. The Appellant filed his appeal on February 26, 2015. He brings a motion to extend the time for filing his 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 making its decision, the Tribunal has been guided by the four part test for reasonable grounds to grant a motion for the 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 Appellant provided the following facts in support of his motion. He acknowledged that, when the vehicle was impounded, the police officer gave him a copy of the Notice to Registrar. Initially, the Appellant suggested that he did not read the information provided on the back side of the Notice to the Registrar which sets out the time frames for filing an appeal. He subsequently admitted that he did read the document sometime between the date of the impoundment and his court appearance on February 6, 2015.
He offered no explanation as to why he did not take steps to file the appeal at that time, only to state he had “lots on his mind”. Two weeks later, at a second court appearance, the Appellant raised the impoundment issue and was informed he had the wrong forum. He delayed another six days to file the appeal. The Appellant was unable to explain the additional delay.
The Appellant indicated that he operates his own masonry business. Since the impoundment of the vehicle, he has not been able to work and has employees waiting for him to resume his business. Although he has been ill for the past six weeks, he would have continued to work if he had a vehicle. He is unable to rent a vehicle as he does not have a valid licence and no credit card. He offered no information on experiencing difficulties finding alternative transportation for his daily needs. He has applied for social assistance and claimed he is behind in rent. The cost of the impoundment and the loss of work have caused him financial hardship.
The Appellant acknowledged that two days prior to this hearing, as the impoundment period had expired, he paid the impoundment fees with money from a tax return. The vehicle has been released from the impound facility. He is seeking reimbursement of the fees from the Registrar through this appeal.
The Appellant’s driver’s licence is suspended until December 2, 2015, for an offence under the Criminal Code which occurred in the province of Nova Scotia. As a result of the conviction, an Order of Prohibition to Operate a Motor Vehicle in Canada was issued for a period of two years. The Appellant stated he believed the Order only applied to his home province and stated he did not read the small print that stipulated it applied to all of Canada. He stated that, when he planned to move to Ontario six months ago he received wrong information about his driving eligibility status in Ontario. In cross examination, he acknowledged that during his inquiry with the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario, he did not feel he had to divulge the details of the existing prohibition order issued in Nova Scotia.
The Registrar’s Agent objected to the granting of an extension of time and argued that the Appellant is the suspended driver in this case with a Canada-wide prohibition to operate a motor vehicle. He had a responsibility to take the necessary steps to file the appeal in a timely manner, if indeed he intended to do so. He did not act in good faith and was not mindful of deadlines.
The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was filed 23 days late and 37 days after the vehicle was impounded. By his own admission, he read the Notice to Registrar and the appeal rights to this Tribunal. He took no steps to assert his rights in a timely fashion. The Tribunal, on the evidence, cannot conclude that there was a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed time period.
In considering the length of the delay, the Tribunal is mindful that the impoundment period in this instance is for 45 days. A delay of several days becomes a major issue when a proceeding must, by its nature, be expedited. Costs accrue on a daily basis and must be paid by the Appellant, if unsuccessful or by the Registrar if he is successful. A 23-day delay beyond the statutory appeal period is a significant factor to be taken into consideration.
With respect to the merits of the appeal, the reasons for appeal set out in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal indicate that he is appealing on the grounds that the driver’s licence was not under suspension and of exceptional hardship.
Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, the Appellant knew of his prohibition to drive resulting from a conviction in his home province of Nova Scotia. Although he alleged being misled by authorities in Ontario when he inquired about his licence eligibility status, he conceded that he chose not to divulge the details of the existing prohibition order. The Appellant’s licence was in fact under suspension at the time of the impoundment.
With respect to exceptional hardship, the provisions in section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 are very strict and they limit what the Tribunal may consider as being exceptional hardship. The Appellant is the suspended driver in this case. The Appellant lives in an urban area and has managed to provide for his daily needs while the vehicle was impounded. The only impact of a loss is on the suspended driver himself. The regulation specifically precludes the consideration of financial or economic loss by the suspended driver.
For the above reasons, the Tribunal concludes the appeal would have little reasonable chance of success.
In conclusion, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has failed to establish reasonable grounds for an extension of time to file his appeal. Accordingly, his motion for an extension of time is denied.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_________________________
Geneviève Blais, Member
RELEASED: March 20, 2015