Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
DATE:
2015-07-15
FILE:
9626/MVIA
CASE NAME:
9626 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
ADJUDICATORS:
Eleanor White, Member
Patricia McQuaid, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Sonia De Santis, Agent
Heard by teleconference:
July 7, 2015
REASONS FOR DECISION
A hearing was held on July 7, 2015, by teleconference, to consider the Appellant’s appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA” or the “Act”).
THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMS THE IMPOUNDMENT pursuant to section 55.1(3) of the HTA. As a result, the Appellant’s motor vehicle will remain detained at the impound facility for 45 days.
BACKGROUND
A motor vehicle was impounded under section 55.1 of the Act, and the impoundment was appealed by the Appellant, who is the registered owner. The motor vehicle and date of appeal in this matter are as follows:
Motor Vehicle: 2010 Dodge CXT (the “vehicle”)
Date of Appeal: July 7, 2015
The Appellant had arranged for her vehicle, a 2010 Dodge CXT to be serviced while she was out of town, travelling. She had asked Ms. M, her mother, to pick up her car from the mechanic and bring it back to her home, until her return. Ms. M was stopped while she was driving the Dodge CXT on June 14, 2015. Her licence was under suspension and the vehicle was seized and impounded.
ISSUES
As set out in the Appellant’s request for hearing (Exhibit #2), the owner appeals on the basis that the loss of the vehicle will result in exceptional hardship, as provided in sections 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.
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 Applicant
The Appellant testified that she had been out of the country for a period of 10 days, and returning to Canada on June 14, 2015. She had arranged for work to be done on her vehicle at a garage while she was away. She asked her mother, Ms. M, to pick up her vehicle after it was fixed and drive it to Ms. M’s home, from where the Appellant would retrieve it upon her arrival back in Canada. On her arrival, she was informed that the vehicle had been impounded. Ms. M. had been apprehended while driving the vehicle and the vehicle was impounded due to the suspension of her driver’s licence.
The Appellant testified that she was unaware of the status of Ms. M.’s driver’s licence. The Appellant stated that she has lived with her grandparents for several years and that she and her mother had undergone some difficulties over the years.
The Appellant is entering her second year at a community college and is working two jobs to save for her tuition for her last year at school. During the school year, she works in customer service at ‘The Brick’ and for this summer has been transferred to their store in another city. The Appellant lives with her boyfriend in that city on Sunday and Monday and works at the store on those days. During the week, she works as a gate attendant at a conservation area in while living with her grandparents in a different city.
The Appellant has managed to get to her jobs almost every day since the vehicle impoundment by asking for help. Her father does not have an available vehicle. Her grandparents can help occasionally, but require