Tribunal File Number: 12307/MVIA
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:
Roy Rivers
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Avril Farlam
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Roy Rivers, Appellant
For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent
Heard by teleconference: September 25, 2019
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1A teleconference hearing was held on September 25, 2019 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the impoundment of his 2018 Chrysler (the “vehicle”) on August 23, 2019 for 45 days.
2The appellant submits that the vehicle was stolen by his niece’s boyfriend at the time it was detained to be impounded. He also submits that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship to him because he needs the vehicle for transportation and the payment of the impound fees to obtain the vehicle at the end of the impoundment period will cause him financial hardship.
ISSUES
3The issues to be determined are:
a. Was the appellant’s vehicle stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded?
b. Will the impoundment result in exceptional hardship?
CONCLUSION
4I find that the appellant’s evidence fails to support a finding that the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment, or that the impoundment results in exceptional hardship.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
5The 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.
6An owner may appeal only on the grounds set out in s. 50.2(3), (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the HTA. The appellant appeals on ground (a), that the motor vehicle that is impounded was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded and (d), that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
Was the appellant’s vehicle stolen at the time it was impounded?
7I find the appellant’s vehicle was not stolen at the time it was impounded because he gave his implied consent by allowing his niece to drive the vehicle and she permitted her boyfriend to drive the appellants vehicle. The burden is on the appellant to prove that his vehicle was stolen on a balance of probabilities. Appellant has not proven that his vehicle was stolen by his niece’s boyfriend on a balance of probabilities.
8The meaning of stolen is not defined in the HTA. A vehicle is stolen if it is taken without the owner’s consent. That consent may be express or implied.
9The respondent relies on Auto Zone & Rentals Inc. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2016 ONLAT 10149, a decision by Linda P. Lamoureux, Executive Chair at paragraph 16:
“I also find that the Tribunal erred in finding that “stolen” within the meaning of s. 50.2 (3) (a) of the HTA amounts to use of property contrary to the owner’s instructions: such a definition broadens the meaning of “stolen” beyond the ordinary meaning of the term and what the language of the legislation can reasonably support. This was a significant error of law.”
10I accept that “stolen” in s. 50.2(3)(a) of the [HTA](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-h8/latest/rso-199