Licence Appeal Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en matière de permis
FILE: 9288/MVIA
CASE NAME: 9288 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: 9288
-and-
Respondent: Registrar of Motor Vehicles
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Antoine A. Aouad, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Her husband, as Agent
For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent
Heard by teleconference: January 13, 2015
REASONS FOR DECISION
A hearing was held on January 13, 2015, 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, by order dated January 14, 2015, confirmed the impoundment with 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: 2011 FORD COF (the “vehicle”)
Date of Appeal: December 10, 2014
All 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 loss of the vehicle will result in exceptional hardship, 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 Notice of Appeal filed with the Tribunal was entered as Exhibit #2. In the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant’s Agent authorized her husband to represent her in the appeal.
The Appellant’s Agent states in the Notice of Appeal that he was certain the suspended driver had a valid driver’s licence in that he had seen her drive “on many occasions.” The Appellant’s Agent further stated: “I did ask her if she had a valid licence and she indicated that she did. Admittedly I did not physically see it.”
During the hearing, the Appellant’s Agent testified as a witness and reiterated his statements on the Notice of Appeal, explaining that he has known the suspended driver for approximately six months, and assumed she had a licence given the fact that he had seen her drive on “numerous occasions.” The witness testified that the loss of the vehicle is causing hardship as the lack of the vehicle has hindered the family’s daily routine. Further, according to the witness, the family will not be able to afford the cost of the impoundment, as the Appellant does not work and the witness is the sole provider.
In cross-examination, the Appellant’s Agent confirmed that he was able to rent a vehicle for a couple of weeks, but had to return it as he could not afford the cost. During the Christmas period, the witness testified that he was able to drive his wife’s car. As noted above, his wife is also the owner of the impounded vehicle, the 2011 Ford pick-up.
The witness acknowledged that although there appears to be four vehicles registered to the household, the 2004 Mazda has been sold. The witness denied any knowledge of a Chevy registered in the Appellant’s name, as well as one of the trailers registered in his name. The witness confirmed ownership of a 5 ton truck, and a seadoo trailer, neither of which can be used for transportation for the family.
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 officer who detained the impounded motor vehicle indicating, among other things