M.H. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2018 CanLII 127587

Date: 2018-12-06

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 of the Act.

Between:

M.H.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

Panel: Cezary Paluch, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Did not appear

For the Respondent: Sonia De Santis, Agent

Place and Date of Hearing: By Teleconference November 29, 2018

A. OVERVIEW:

1This matter arises from an erroneous impoundment of a motor vehicle on October 13, 2018. On that day, the appellant was stopped by Toronto Police Services, and through investigation of police and Ministry records, it was determined that the appellant was subject to a driving suspension. As a result, the police charged the appellant with driving while disqualified and impounded the vehicle.

2The appellant, both at the time of the police stop and subsequently, believed there to be an error in the records. He contacted Toronto Police Services on October 25, 2018 with further information showing that his licence was not suspended at the time at the time of the impoundment, and that Ministry records had been corrected to reflect this.

3The police officer worked with the appellant and the Ministry to have the impoundment canceled on October 31, 2018. The vehicle was picked up by the appellant on November 9, 2018. It appears that the appellant will not be responsible for any impoundment fees from the date of the impoundment until November 9, 2018.

4In the interim period between October 13, 2018 and October 31, 2018, the appellant had filed this appeal. As a matter of course, a case conference was scheduled for November 13, 2018. Present during the case conference was a representative for the Registrar. However, the appellant did not call in.

5As a result, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss an Appeal, dated November 13, 2018, advising the appellant that he must submit a letter to the Tribunal and to the Registrar within five (5) business days of receiving the Notice of Intent to Dismiss explaining the reasons for non-attendance at the case conference and why the appeal should not be dismissed, at which point, the Tribunal shall render a decision, based on the submissions, as to whether the appeal should be dismissed. If the appeal was not dismissed, a further case conference was to be scheduled.

6On November 21, 2018, the appellant provided an email to the Tribunal explaining that he misunderstood and thought that he was supposed to be there in person and was travelling on the TTC when his matter was supposed to be heard and did not have service on his telephone. The appellant added that that his car was wrongfully impounded and he would like the matter to be heard.

7As a result, the matter proceeded to a hearing on November 29, 2018 at 1:30 pm. The appellant did not call in again. Present for the respondent was Sonia De Santis. The Tribunal waited 15 minutes before proceeding. At 30 minutes past the start time the appellant still had not called. The respondent’s representative submitted that the matter is moot because the vehicle is no longer subject to impoundment, and this appeal should be dismissed given this was the second non-appearance by the appellant. The respondent also explained that the Registrar has agreed to reimburse the appellant for the impoundment fees he incurred for the period of October 12 to 31, 2018, and the police are working with the appellant regarding the fees beyond this period. The appellant therefore will not incur any fees for the period of the erroneous impoundment. The respondent’s representative communicated this position to the appellant in advance of the case conference.

8These facts indicate to the Tribunal that the appellant may no longer see merit in pursing the appeal.

B. ISSUE:

9Should this appeal be dismissed?

C. LAW:

10Rule 3.4(d) of The Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) (“Rules”), allows a Tribunal to dismiss an appeal without a hearing if: the appellant is found to have abandoned the proceeding.

11Rule 3.5 of also states:

Before dismissing an appeal under this Rule, the Tribunal will:

a) Give the parties notice of its intention to dismiss;

b) Provide the reasons for its intended decision to dismiss; and

c) Inform the parties of their right to make written submissions to the Tribunal within the time limits set out in the notice, which shall be at least 5 days.

12On November 13, 2018, in compliance with Rule 3.5, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss advising the appellant that he must submit a letter to the Tribunal and to the Registrar within five (5) days explaining the reasons for non-attendance at the case conference and why the appeal should not be dismissed.

13Although, on November 21, 2018, the appellant provided an email to the Tribunal explaining the reason why he did not attend the case conference on November 13, 2018, he still did not attend the scheduled hearing date of November 29, 2018, despite being provided with proper notice.

14In addition, section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c S.22, also speaks to effect of non-attendance at a hearing after due notice and abandonment. It says that if a party receives notice of a hearing, in-person or in writing, and fails to attend, the hearing may proceed in their absence and no further notice of the proceeding provided.

15Therefore, based on the information before me, I am satisfied that the appellant was provided proper notice of the hearing date and advised of the potential dismissal of his appeal. Despite this, he failed to appear at the hearing on November 29, 2018 at 1:30 pm. It also appears to me that he has abandoned his appeal.

D. CONCLUSION/ORDER:

16For the reasons set out above, the appellant’s appeal is dismissed.