Licence Appeal Tribunal
File Number: 11615/MVIA
Appeal under subsection 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.
Between:
E.A.
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Jacqueline Castel
Appearances:
For the Appellant: A.C., Agent
For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent
Place and Date of Hearing: By Teleconference
October 22, 2018
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW:
1A teleconference hearing was held on October 22, 2018 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45 day impoundment of her 2015 Ford COF (the “vehicle”). The vehicle was impounded on September 7, 2018 and is to be released to the appellant on October 22, 2018.
ISSUE:
2The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
CONCLUSION:
3On the evidence before me at the hearing, I find that the impoundment did not result in exceptional hardship within the meaning of s. 50.2(3) (d) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act” or the “HTA”).
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
4The owner of a vehicle that has been impounded pursuant to s. 55.1 of the HTA, may pursuant to s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment and request an order that the Registrar release the vehicle.
5There are limited grounds on which an owner may appeal an impoundment as set out in section 50.2(3) of the HTA. The appellant in this case appealed on the ground that the impoundment has caused her exceptional hardship.
Exceptional Hardship
6Section 10 of O. Reg.631/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that I must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment. In order to establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement set out in 10(1) of the Regulation is that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. If I find that there is an alternative to the impounded vehicle, then I need not consider any other requirements. I find that the appellant has not met this first requirement.
7The appellant is 63 years of age, single and lives on her own. She resides in a rural area. There is no public transportation except for the GO Bus. The appellant has never taken the GO Bus and would not be comfortable doing so. There is a taxi service in the appellant’s community.
8The appellant used to be employed as a limousine driver. However, she is no longer able to drive for a living as a result of injuries sustained during an automobile collision which occurred several years ago. The appellant currently has one tenant and her sole income is the rent that this tenant pays. The appellant expects to start receiving a pension in about a year and a half, when she turns 65.
9The appellant is afraid to go outside of the home because of an incident which occurred one day before her vehicle was impounded. The incident involved a dispute with a former tenant who became violent and damaged her property. The police were called to intervene in this incident.
10The appellant’s daughter, A.C., typically assists her mother in obtaining groceries and doing errands. A.C. was also the suspended driver at the time the appellant’s vehicle was impounded. During the period of impoundment, the appellant’s daughter continued to assist her mother with groceries and errands. A friend drove the appellant’s daughter to purchase the groceries and deliver them to her mother. This was very inconvenient for the friend who lives over 40 minutes from the appellant’s mother.
11The appellant has approximately $14,000 in savings. The appellant is very careful about spending any of her savings, given that she is not yet receiving a pension. For this reason, she felt it would be too expensive to use taxis or rent a vehicle during the period of impoundment.
12There is no doubt that the appellant has been inconvenienced because of the impoundment. However, the evidence does not support exceptional hardship. To establish exceptional hardship, the appellant must prove, first of all, that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, and she has not done so.
13The appellant’s daughter, with the assistance of a friend, was able to assist the appellant with groceries and errands while the vehicle was impounded. Given the appellant’s savings, using taxis or renting a vehicle would have also been alternatives.
14I am sympathetic to the appellant’s situation and the inconvenience in which she found herself because of the impoundment. However, the appellant’s testimony does not support a finding of exceptional hardship. For this reason, I do not need to consider the other provisions of s. 10 of the regulation.
ORDER:
15Pursuant to subsection 50(2)(5) of the HTA, I deny the appeal and confirm the impoundment order.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
___________________________
Jacqueline Castel, Member
Released: October 23, 2018