Eda Kalm v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2019 CanLII 119763

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2019-12-03

File Number: 12417/MVIA

Appeal under subsection 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:

Eda Kalm

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Jacqueline Castel

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Eda Kalm, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent

Place and Date of Hearing: By Teleconference December 2, 2019

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW:

1A teleconference hearing was held on December 2, 2019 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45 day impoundment of her 2004 CHRY, PTC (the “vehicle”). The vehicle was impounded on October 20, 2019, because it was being driven by a person whose driver’s licence was under suspension.

ISSUE:

2The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship?

CONCLUSION:

3On the evidence before me at the hearing, I find that the impoundment did not result in exceptional hardship within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act” or the “HTA”).

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

4The owner of a vehicle that has been impounded, pursuant to s. 55.1 of the HTA, may pursuant to s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment and request an order that the Registrar release the vehicle.

5There are limited grounds on which an owner may appeal an impoundment as set out in section 50.2(3) of the HTA. The appellant in this case appealed on the ground of exceptional hardship.

Exceptional Hardship

6Section 10 of O. Reg.631/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that I must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment. In order to establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement set out in 10(1) of the Regulation is that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. If I find that there is an alternative to the impounded vehicle, then I need not consider any other requirements. I find that the appellant has not met this first requirement.

7The appellant is 87 years of age and resides, with her son, on a farm in a rural area where there is no public transportation. Her son was the suspended driver who was driving the vehicle when it was detained and impounded.

8The appellant testified that she no longer has a driver’s licence, and she relies on family members for transportation. She allows one of her granddaughters to use the vehicle to take her shopping and to appointments. The appellant stated that she cannot afford to use taxis.

9The appellant testified that her daughter, granddaughter and grandson helped her with errands, such as groceries, during the period of impoundment. She had to cancel an annual medical checkup because no one was available to take her to the appointment. The appellant stated that she will be rescheduling the appointment. She explained that her daughter and grandchildren work so they are not always available to take her to appointments. She also testified, in response to a question on cross-examination, that she had an adequate supply of medication during the period of impoundment.

10There is no doubt that the appellant has been inconvenienced because of the impoundment. However, the evidence does not support exceptional hardship. To establish exceptional hardship, the appellant must prove, first of all, that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, and she has not done so. The appellant gave evidence that her daughter and grandchildren have assisted her with transportation and in doing errands during the period of impoundment. In fact, they would need to assist her in any case, since she no longer drives. The appellant gave evidence that her daughter and grandson have their own vehicles, and her granddaughter borrowed her daughter’s vehicle, on at least one occasion during the period of impoundment, to assist her with transportation.

11I am sympathetic to the inconvenience in which the appellant found herself because of the impoundment. However, her testimony does not support a finding of exceptional hardship. For this reason, I do not need to consider the other provisions of s. 10 of the regulation.

ORDER:

12Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I deny the appeal and confirm the impoundment order.