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(3) of the Act.
Between:
A.G.
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Marisa Victor, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
A.G., Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Sanjay Kapur, Agent
Place and date of Hearing:
Teleconference April 24, 2017
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER:
Overview
1A.G. appeals the 45-day impoundment of her 2010 Chevrolet Cobalt. Her vehicle was impounded after being driven by her son (C.G.) who had a suspended licence. He was pulled over for making an illegal left turn and the vehicle impounded at that time.
2The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment has caused and will cause her exceptional hardship, in particular the loss of her job due to lack of a vehicle.
3After considering the evidence, the Tribunal confirms the impoundment.
ISSUE
4The only issue is whether the impoundment has or will cause the appellant exceptional hardship.
THE LAW
5Under s. 50.2(3)(d) the Highway Traffic Act (HTA), an owner may appeal the impoundment of their vehicle on the basis that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. The onus is on the appellant to prove exceptional hardship.
6Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the Regulation) provides the criteria to be considered when determining the outcome of an appeal under this section.
7Under the Regulation, I must first consider whether no alternative exists for the impounded vehicle. This means that every reasonable option has been considered, including using public transit, taxis, using another vehicle and planning to do without any motor vehicle during the impoundment period.
8Only if there is no reasonable alternative can I consider whether the impoundment will cause a financial or economic loss that is immediate, significant and lasting. The Regulation states that I cannot consider inconvenience to any person as being exceptional hardship.
9Therefore, before I can consider if the appellant suffered exceptional hardship, I must find that there were no reasonable alternatives available.
Evidence
10The appellant testified that she lives in Toronto. Her son, C.G., does not live with her. However, on the day of the impoundment he was visiting her. The appellant was sick with the flu at the time and asked C.G. to get her something from the store. While driving, C.G. made an illegal left turn and was pulled over by a police officer. As C.G.’s driver’s licence was suspended, the vehicle was impounded for 45 days.
11The appellant testified that at the time of impoundment she had recently begun a job in Hamilton, Ontario. She had been in the position for three weeks. The job was part-time and involved shift work. She was scheduled to work Mondays, Wednesday and Sundays. Her shifts were eight to twelve hours in length and could include night shifts. Her hours were 4pm – 12 am, 8pm – 8am or 12am – 8am. The position involved assisting persons living with developmental disabilities.
12The appellant was paid $17 an hour. She earned approximately $200.00 gross for a 12-hour shift. She drove 45 minutes to work, which was about 75 km each way. In addition, she paid about $10 or more for parking for each shift.
13The appellant looked into taking public transit to her job. She could not recall the transit schedule, but did recall that it would take her twice as long by transit as it would by car. She also felt the cost, $12 each way, and the extra time it would have taken made it unreasonable. In addition, on the day of the impoundment, she stated she did not have the money to travel to her work by public transit for her next shift as she had not yet been paid for her first three weeks of work.
14The appellant stated that she submitted her resignation to her employer due to her lack of a car. She submitted the resignation by email and received no response back. Before resigning, she did not ask if they would make accommodations for her travel situation. She felt it was unprofessional to ask for them to accommodate her lack of vehicle. She has not asked for her position back and is currently unemployed. She felt that as the employer had been anxious to find staff to fill vacation time at the time the appellant resigned, they would not be happy to have her back.
15Since the impoundment, the appellant has been on social assistance. She is looking for work in both Toronto and outside of Toronto, where she feels she is likely to have more success. However, the lack of a vehicle makes it difficult for her to consider jobs outside of Toronto at this time.
16The appellant also testified about her parents’ medical conditions. Her father lives in Mount Forest and her mother in Dundalk. When she had her vehicle, she would visit every few weeks to offer support and help. Since the impoundment she has been unable to visit. Neither parent relied on her vehicle for transportation to their various medical appointments.
17The appellant expressed her remorse over allowing her son to drive her vehicle. She said she understands the seriousness of what happened. She stated she would never let him drive without a licence again. The appellant stated that the loss of her vehicle has greatly impacted her.
18The respondent presented evidence that C.G.’s driver’s licence was suspended at the time of the impoundment. Furthermore, C.G. has a history of criminal convictions of a serious nature involving the appellant’s vehicle. Twice before, in 2013 and then again in 2015, the appellant’s vehicle has been impounded for seven days due to C.G.’s driving infractions. These impoundments were not done under s. 55(1) of the Act.
ANALYSIS
19The appellant lives in a city well serviced by public transit, that includes good public transportation to Hamilton, especially using GO Transit service. The appellant did explore taking GO Transit to Hamilton but chose not to. Her explanation was not reasonable. She claimed the cost was too high, however, there would be a cost for gas and parking costs were significant. Instead of taking public transit, the appellant gave up a job which more than covered her public transit expenses. The appellant stated that the extra time involved in taking transit was an issue for her as it would add extra time to her commute after a long shift at work, however, under s. 10(2)(s) of the Regulation I cannot consider inconvenience as a factor. Certainly, it would have led to long work days on days she was assigned twelve hour shifts. However, eight-hour shifts were also a possibility. The appellant did not explain why she did not ask her employer to only be assigned the eight hours shifts in order to accommodate her transportation issues. In addition, the shifts were only three times a week so it was not an overly onerous travel schedule.
20The appellant was required to prove that no reasonable alternative to the vehicle existed. I find that she has been unable to meet that burden. The evidence shows that public transit was a reasonable alternative transportation method open to the appellant. As such, I need not move on to the next step to consider whether the lack of a vehicle caused the appellant any significant financial losses.
21The appellant apologized for her actions and said she has learned a hard lesson and will never allow her son to borrow her car again without a valid licence. I understand this has been very hard time for her and her family. Unfortunately, the Act and the Regulation provide me no discretion to take the appellant’s heart-felt apology into account. That being said, I commend the appellant for her apology and her expression of remorse.
ORDER
22After considering the evidence, I confirm the impoundment of the Appellant’s motor vehicle for 45 days.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Marisa Victor, Member
Released: May 02, 2018