Date: 2018-08-09

Appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an impoundment of a motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Act for driving while suspended

Between:

L.G.

Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Stephen Scharbach, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Self-represented

For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent

Place and Date of Hearing: Toronto, Ontario July 30, 2018

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER:

Overview

1The appellant is the owner of a 2001 Nissan motor vehicle. She states that on June 17, 2018, while she was out of town for the weekend, her partner was caught driving her vehicle while his licence was suspended and her vehicle was impounded for 45 days.

2The appellant appeals the impoundment on the single ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ISSUE

3Should the Registrar be ordered to release the appellant’s vehicle on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship?

DECISION

4The appellant states that that the impoundment will cause her financial or economic loss which, in her financial circumstances, will result in exceptional hardship.

5By regulation, the Tribunal may only consider financial or economic loss as exceptional hardship if the owner demonstrates (among other things) that there is no available alternative to the impounded vehicle. In this case the appellant has an available alternative – she owns and operates a second vehicle.

6Since financial or economic loss may not be considered as exceptional hardship where the appellant has an alternative to the impounded vehicle, the appeal must fail and the impoundment is confirmed.

(i) The Criteria to Establish Exceptional Hardship

7Under the Highway Traffic Act (“HTA”), a police officer “shall” impound a motor vehicle for 45 days if the officer is satisfied that it was being driven by a person whose driver’s licence has been suspended (HTA, s.55.1).

8The owner may appeal the impoundment to this Tribunal. On appeal, the Tribunal may confirm the impoundment or order the Registrar to release the vehicle (HTA, s. 50.2(1)).

9There are only four grounds on which an owner may appeal an impoundment. One of those grounds is “that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship” (HTA, s. 50.2(3)). That is the appellant’s single ground for appeal in this case.

10Ontario Regulation 631/98), a regulation made under the HTA, sets out the criteria that the Tribunal may consider, and others that the Tribunal may not consider in determining whether an impoundment will result in exceptional hardship

11According to that regulation, the Tribunal shall not consider whether the impoundment results “in financial or economic loss to any person” unless the owner demonstrates that (among other things), “no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available” (Ontario Regulation 631/98, s.10).

(ii) The Impoundment

12The appellant testified that she owns a 2001 Nissan motor vehicle that was impounded on June 17, 2018 for 45 days when the police discovered it being driven by the appellant’s former partner and a suspended driver.

13According to the appellant, her partner was driving her vehicle without her permission. In fact, she intentionally did not renew the vehicle’s licence plate sticker in June 2018 to discourage her partner from driving the vehicle.

(iii) Impact of the Impoundment

14According to the appellant, she will be required to pay the impound facility $2,778.11 to get her vehicle released at the end of the 45-day impoundment. The impound facility has refused her request that it reduce that charge.

15The appellant testified that she has no money or credit available to pay the impound charge, and in her present financial circumstances those charges will result in exceptional hardship to her.

16The appellant testified that her financial circumstances are poor. She is presently not working. She is receiving disability benefits and those benefits were recently reduced.

17Although the appellant gets some financial assistance from relatives, she is unable to pay her present debts. She recently filed a formal consumer proposal which offers to pay her creditors a reduced percentage of her outstanding debt over a specified time period.

Alternative to the Impounded Vehicle

18The appellant testified that she owns and operates second vehicle, a 2007 Jeep that she currently uses for getting around and attending doctors’ appointments.

(iv) Has Exceptional Hardship been Demonstrated?

19The appellant states that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship because the cost of the impound represents a financial loss that in her distressed financial circumstances will have an exceptionally negative financial impact on her.

20However, Ontario Regulation 631/98 prohibits the Tribunal from considering financial or economic loss in determining whether exceptional hardship exists unless the appellant demonstrates that there is no available alternative to the impounded vehicle.

21In this case the evidence is clear that the appellant owns and operates second vehicle.

22I am therefore precluded in this case from considering financial loss resulting from the impoundment as exceptional hardship.

23Accordingly, I conclude that the appellant has not established that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ORDER

24Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s motor vehicle. The vehicle will remain at the impound facility for the remainder of the impoundment period.