LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards
Tribunals Ontario
Motion for an Order to Extend the 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 s. 55.1(3) of the Act.
Between:
Appellant
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION ON MOTION
Panel: Marisa Victor, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent
Place and date(s) of hearing:
By Teleconference April 17, 2017
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MOTION
A. Overview
1The Appellant’s vehicle was impounded on February 24, 2017. The Appellant filed for an appeal on April 3, 2017, well past the 15-day appeal period allowed. At the time this motion was heard, the 45-day impoundment period had already expired.
2The Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) finds that the Appellant has failed to establish reasonable grounds for an extension of time to file the appeal. The motion is denied.
B. ISSUES
3The issue before the Tribunal is whether the Applicant has established a reasonable ground for an extension of time to file an appeal.
C. LAW & Analysis
4Section 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.
5In order to determine whether there are reasonable grounds for an extension, the Tribunal should consider the following four factors:
a. The existence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period;
b. The length of the delay;
c. Prejudice to the other party; and
d. The merits of the appeal.
6These factors were confirmed in Manuel v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, 2012 ONSC 1492. The factors assist the Tribunal in determining whether justice is served in this case.
7The duty is on the Appellant to provide evidence that can support one or more of these factors. A weaker fact situation under one factor may be balanced by stronger fact situations under one or more of the remaining factors.
8The Appellant filed very little evidence. After some questioning, the Appellant informed the Tribunal of the following:
a. He was driving his vehicle when it was impounded by the police;
b. The police did not advise him of his right to appeal;
c. At his next regular visit with his parole officer, he raised the issue of the impoundment. His parole officer assisted him with filling out the appeal forms on March 13, 2017;
d. He mailed the Notice of Appeal in to the Tribunal, however due to errors, the Tribunal sent him back a new document to complete.
e. With the help of his wife, the Appellant submitted the revised Notice of Appeal, together with the Notice of Motion, to the Tribunal by mail. It was received by the Tribunal on April 3, 2017;
f. He has no disability issues and can read.
8The Appellant also advised the Tribunal that he was in financial difficulty and that he intended to sell the car once it was out of the impoundment. During the impoundment, he has used alternate forms of transportation including bus and taxis. His children have been transported to school via taxi. His wife, who has a medical condition, has been able to take taxis to the pharmacy to obtain her medication.
9The Registrar’s position was that:
a. The initial appeal paperwork was completed after the appeal period had expired and therefore there was no bona fide intention to appeal during the appeal period;
b. The 24-day length of the delay in seeking the appeal is excessive and that the Tribunal has previously found that even four days is significant;
c. The Registrar faces significant prejudice as the entire 45-day impoundment time period has already expired;
d. The Appellant’s appeal has little chance of success.
10The Respondent relied on the decision in 8346 v Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2013 CanLII 69338 (ON LAT) to support its position. This case was also an appeal of a vehicle impoundment where a motion was brought to extend the time for filing the appeal. The Tribunal relied on the facts as they applied to the four factors enumerated above and denied the motion.
11The Tribunal finds the Registrar’s position persuasive and therefore the motion to extend the time for filing the appeal must fail.
12The Tribunal finds that there may have been a bona fide intention to appeal, but that the Appellant did not exercise due diligence in exercising his right. The contact information for the Tribunal is found on the back of the Notice of Suspension which was provided to the Appellant on the day of suspension. There was no evidence that the Appellant pursued any avenues of appeal other than asking his parole officer for assistance.
13The Tribunal finds the length of delay is excessive between the date of the expiry of the fifteen-day appeal period and the date at which the Appellant submitted his forms. This factor, however, does not carry much weight as there seems to have been some back and forth between the Appellant and the Tribunal when the forms were submitted.
14The prejudice to the Registrar could not be greater. The entire 45-day impoundment period has already expired, therefore if the appeal is allowed, the Registrar is required to cover the full cost of the impoundment. One of the reasons for the expedited nature of the appeal process in these cases is to limit the costs faced by the Registrar, should the appeal be successful.
15The most significant issue is that the proposed appeal lacks merit. The Appellant is relying only on the ground of exceptional hardship. As the Appellant was the suspended driver, he cannot rely on this ground of appeal unless there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle and the impoundment threatens the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle as found under s. 10 of Ontario Regulation 631/98.
16The Appellant stated that he intends to sell the vehicle and that the impoundment is causing him difficulty in this regard. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how the lack of the vehicle is causing exceptional hardship if his plan is to sell it. In addition, he provided evidence that his family was using taxis and buses as alternate transportation during the impoundment.
17The Tribunal is of the view that this ground of appeal will not succeed.
18Considering the four factors together, the Tribunal finds that it is not reasonable to grant an extension under these circumstances.
D. CONCLUSION
19The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has failed to establish reasonable grounds for an extension of time to file his appeal.
ORDER:
20The motion for an extension of time to file the appeal is denied.
Marisa Victor, Member
Released: April 20, 2017