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:
S.A. Appellant
And
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Appellant: No one appeared.
For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: March 6, 2018
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
A. Overview
1The appellant requested a hearing to consider the appeal of the impoundment of her 2016 Dodge Charger (the "vehicle") on January 7, 2018 for 45 days on the grounds of exceptional hardship. The appellant's Notice of Appeal indicates that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship to her because she needs the vehicle to get to work, to care for her family, and because the impoundment is causing her financial hardship. The appellant was given notice of the hearing by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal").
2A teleconference hearing was held on March 6, 2018. The appellant did not attend, did not send a representative, and did not advise the Tribunal that she would not be attending the hearing. The respondent's agent did attend.
3The Tribunal attempted to contact the appellant on the day prior to the hearing to confirm her attendance but the appellant did not respond. The hearing was delayed until 10:00 a.m. on March 6, 2018 to allow the appellant further opportunity to participate in the hearing. Prior to 10:00 a.m. on March 6, 2018, the Tribunal attempted to contact the appellant but the appellant did not respond.
4The teleconference hearing proceeded without the participation of the appellant. I considered the appellant's appeal in her absence.
B. ISSUE:
5The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship to the appellant.
C. CONCLUSION:
6There was no evidence from the appellant to support a finding that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
D. LAW AND ANALYSIS:
7The owner of a vehicle which has been impounded pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8 (the "HTA") may, pursuant to s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment and request an order that the Registrar release the vehicle.
8An owner may appeal only on the grounds set out in s. 50.2(3) of the HTA:
(a) that the motor vehicle that is impounded was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded;
(b) that the driver's licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension;
(c) that the owner of the motor vehicle exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver's licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension; or
(d) that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship;
9The appellant seeks to have her vehicle released on the basis that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship?
10There was no evidence from the appellant to support a finding that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. The appellant did not attend the hearing and did not testify. No other witness testified on her behalf. The appellant bears the onus of proof in this appeal and has failed to meet the onus.
11The respondent submitted that the appellant admitted in her Notice of Appeal that she had rented another vehicle during the impoundment period. I agree with this submission and I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship because the appellant has an alternative available to the impounded vehicle.
12Based on the appellant's Notice of Appeal, I find that the appellant has an alternative to the impounded vehicle available to her. The appeal is dismissed on the basis that the appellant failed to prove her case and on the basis that I have found an alternative vehicle was available to the appellant. I find the appellant has not established the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA.
ORDER:
13Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant's vehicle.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
Released: March 29, 2018