M.M. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2018 CanLII 126540

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2018-11-22

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:

M.M.

Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: D. Gregory Flude

Appearances:

For the Appellant: No-one appearing

For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent

Place and Date of Hearing: By Teleconference November 16, 2018

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW:

1A teleconference hearing was held on November 16, 2018 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45-day impoundment of her 2007 Nissan, ATS (the “Vehicle”). The Vehicle was impounded on September 29, 2018.

2The appellant submits that the impoundment of the Vehicle resulted in exceptional hardship.

ISSUE:

3The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship to the appellant.

ANALYSIS:

4The appellant failed to appear at the hearing. I satisfied myself that she had been sent the Notice of Hearing by email on November 14, 2018. I was also advised by the case management officer (”CMO”) handling this matter, that she had made attempts to contact the appellant on the telephone today to confirm her attendance at the hearing. The CMO left messages for the appellant with a call-back number. The appellant did not call back.

5After waiting for 30 minutes to give the appellant the opportunity to appear at the hearing, I proceeded to receive the Registrar’s documentary evidence. The documentary evidence confirms that on September 29, 2018 the Vehicle was being driven by a driver whose licence was suspended for offences delineated in s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”) when it was detained and impounded by a police officer. I find that this impoundment was in accordance with the s. 55.1 of the HTA.

6In her Notice of Appeal, the appellant alleges that the impoundment may cause exceptional hardship. She has the onus of proving exceptional hardship. No evidence was led at the hearing in support of the appellant’s position. Her appeal must be dismissed.

ORDER:

7Pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment order.