Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
DATE:
2015-10-27
FILE:
9824/MVIA
CASE NAME:
9824 v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Motion for an Order to extend time to file an 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:
Patricia L. Cassidy, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
No one appeared
For the Respondent:
Sanjay Kapur, Agent
Heard by teleconference:
October 21, 2015
REASONS FOR DECISION
A hearing was scheduled for October 21, 2015, to be heard by teleconference, to consider the Appellant’s appeal pursuant to section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA” or the “Act”). As a preliminary matter, the Appellant brought a motion to be permitted to file his appeal outside the 15 day appeal period set out in the Act.
THE TRIBUNAL did not determine the issue of the impoundment pursuant to section 55.1(3) of the HTA.
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: 2005 Dodge Crew-Cab (the “vehicle”)
Date of Appeal: Notice of Appeal filed September 30, 2015
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
As noted above, a Notice of Motion was filed on behalf of the Appellant requesting leave for an extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal in this matter. On reading the material filed, it is apparent the vehicle was impounded on August 18, 2015 and the Notice of Appeal was filed on September 30, 2015, well outside the 15 days prescribed by Section 9 O. Reg. 631/98. In any event, neither the Appellant nor anyone appearing on his behalf was present at the time scheduled for the start of the hearing. Tribunal staff attempted to contact the Appellant’s representative of record without success. The Tribunal waited 30 minutes to allow time for the representative to call the number provided to him for the teleconference hearing. He did not attend on the teleconference.
Therefore, given that the preliminary motion requesting leave for late filing of the Notice of Appeal could not be determined, the appeal on the merits could not be determined either. As a result, the vehicle remains detained at the impound facility.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Patricia L Cassidy, Vice- Chair
RELEASED: October 27, 2015