Licence Appeal Tribunal

Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario

Tribunal d’appel en matière de permis

Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario

Date: 2019-09-26

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:

Stacey Jaynes

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

Panel: Joanne E. Foot, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent

Place and date(s) of hearing:

By Teleconference

August 29, 2019

REASONS FOR DECISION

A. Overview

1The appellant lives and works in Tilbury, Ontario. She has two sons, one of whom is 17, attends school, has a part-time job and lives at home. The other is 26 years old and lives in a community about a 45-minute drive away.

2On August 6, 2019, Mr. Blake Moore, the appellant's boyfriend, was driving the appellant’s 2005 Ford (the “vehicle”) near Wheatley, Ontario when he was stopped by a police officer for speeding. The officer determined that Mr. Moore’s driver’s licence was suspended as a result of a conviction for impaired driving. As a result, the police officer detained the appellant’s car and directed that it be removed to an impound facility for 45 days.

3The appellant appealed the impoundment to the Tribunal on the basis that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. She submits that she lives in an area unserved by public transportation or taxis and that she has had difficulty getting to work and making arrangements for her son to get to his job. She asks the Tribunal to order the Registrar to release her vehicle.

4I am required to determine whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, considering the relevant provisions of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) and regulations.

5While the impoundment of the appellant’s car has caused stress, inconvenience and increased costs for the appellant, the appellant has not demonstrated that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, as she has been able to rely on her work colleagues to get to and from work, walk to the grocery store and make alternative arrangements for her son to attend his part-time job. Accordingly, I confirm the impoundment.

B. ISSUE

6The sole issue raised by the appellant in this appeal is whether the impoundment results in exceptional hardship within paragraph (d) of s. 50.2(3) of the Act.

C. LAW

7Under the Act, where a police officer is satisfied that a person was driving while his or her driver’s licence is suspended, the officer is required to detain and impound the vehicle. Section 55.1 of the Act sets out the scope of the authority, the impound period and other requirements and obligations. The impound period is 45 days if there has been no previous impoundment in the previous two years.

8Subsection 50.2(3) of the Act lists four grounds on which an owner may appeal and on which the Tribunal may order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle. The appellant appeals on the basis of paragraph (d) of subsection 50.2(3), which states:

50.2(3) The only grounds on which an owner may appeal under subsection (1) and the only grounds on which the tribunal may order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle are,

(d) that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

9Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that the Tribunal must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment. In order to establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement, as set out in s. 10(1) of the Regulation, is that there must be no alternative to the impounded vehicle. Subsection 10(4) states that in order to show that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle:

…the owner must demonstrate that every reasonable option has been considered and inquired into that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss to the person, including using another vehicle and making arrangements to do without any motor vehicle during the impound period.

10The appellant bears the burden of proving that she falls within one of the grounds of appeal set out in Subsection 50.2(3) of the Act.

11Following a hearing, under s. 50.2(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may confirm the impoundment or order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle.

D. ANALYSIS

12The appellant testified that Mr. Moore is her boyfriend. She testified that Mr. Moore does not work and is on disability. The appellant was candid and forthcoming in all respects and presents as a reasonable and responsible person. She testified that she did not know that Mr. Moore’s driver’s licence was under suspension, and that it never occurred to her to ask him whether he held a valid driver’s licence as she has known him since they were in high school. At the time the vehicle was impounded, she had understood that Mr. Moore would be dropping the vehicle at her home, and was surprised to learn that he was stopped in another town approximately 20 kilometers away. I believe the appellant in these matters.

13The appellant indicated that there is no taxi service in Tilbury and that she struggles to get to and from work. She manages by arranging to be picked up by other employees at her workplace. Her younger son’s job is at a fast food establishment on the 401 highway and, at least some of the time, she has been able to arrange a paid ride for him. The appellant’s older son and her parents live in Kingsville and her son does not drive. She has been unable to visit with them since the time of the impoundment of her vehicle.

14The appellant lives right in the town of Tilbury and is within walking distance of food stores. However, she prefers to shop at a store some distance outside the town where the prices are lower. To accomplish this, she has been able to borrow a work colleague’s car prior to the end of the colleague’s shift.

15The appellant has indicated that she does not like to rely on others and has found the situation to be stressful, anxiety-producing and inconvenient.

16In order to establish exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act, the appellant must first establish that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. This requires that she consider every reasonable option that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss, including using another vehicle and making arrangements to do without any motor vehicle during the impound period. If the appellant is able to establish that there is no alternative, the appellant must then show that the impoundment will result in either a threat to health or safety or an employment, financial or educational loss that meets the criteria set out in s. 10(3) of the Regulation.

17I understand that as a result of the impoundment, the appellant is required to become more dependent on others, her ability to see her older son and parents is limited and that she is required to spend more money on her son’s rides to work. Although this is an extra burden on the appellant, her use of a colleague’s vehicle is a reasonable option and, in general, it appears that she has been able to make do with alternative arrangements. As the appellant has been able to get rides to and from work and generally cope with her and her family’s day-to-day needs, I find that the appellant has an alternative to the impounded vehicle within the meaning of s. 10 of the Regulation and the legal test for exceptional hardship under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act has not been met.

E. CONCLUSION:

18For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s motor vehicle. The vehicle will remain at the impound facility for the remainder of the impoundment period.