An Appeal under subsection 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an impoundment of a motor vehicle pursuant to Section 55.1(3) of the Act
Between:
Keshia Rangongo
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Keshia Rangongo, (self-represented)
For the Respondent: Nora Challis, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: September 30, 2019
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1A teleconference hearing was held on September 30, 2019 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45-day impoundment of her 2013 Nissan Altima (the “vehicle”). The vehicle was impounded on August 26, 2019.
2The appellant was not driving the vehicle at the time. She loaned the vehicle to her brother-in-law who was subsequently stopped by the police and found to not have a valid driver’s licence.
3Subsection 55.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act” or the “HTA”) allows for the impoundment of a vehicle for 45 days where a police officer is satisfied that the driver’s licence of the person, who is driving a vehicle, is under suspension. The vehicle was impounded pursuant to this subsection of the Act.
4The appellant is appealing the impoundment on the grounds of exceptional hardship.
ISSUES
5The issue to be determined is:
i. Did the impoundment result in exceptional hardship?
CONCLUSION
6On the evidence before me at the hearing, I find that the impoundment did not result in exceptional hardship to the appellant within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Exceptional Hardship
7Section 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.
8The appellant testified that she was able to use public transit and Uber cab service during this period. She has been able to attend work during this period and has also spoken with her supervisor for work assignments requiring little travel. The appellant is an event planner which requires her to transport work materials to her work location. Although it may certainly be inconvenient, she has demonstrated the ability to transport these materials via public transit or Uber cab service.
9The appellant stated that she has missed a few work assignments but has spoken with her supervisor to acquire extra shifts to make up for this.
10The testimony reveals that the appellant lives with her husband and children. Her husband works but does not drive. He has always carpooled to and from work with colleagues or found other means even prior to this impoundment. The appellant has two children aged 12 and 16 years old. One child is able to walk to school and the other is picked up by a school bus.
11From time to time, the appellant provides assistance to her grandmother and mother who both suffer from multiple health issues. She assists in taking them to their medical appointments. Both individuals reside on their own and receive personal income in the form of pension or disability. The appellant has been able to attend all of her personal medical appointments and those for her family members who rely on her. She stated that she was not able to attend one of these appointments because she did not have enough money for an Uber service. Her grandmother is trying to reschedule that appointment with her doctor. I note that there was one occasion where a neighbour was able to assist the appellant’s grandmother by transporting her to the doctor in her car.
12The appellant has been able to obtain groceries during this time period without the need of a personal vehicle. She stated that there is also a drugstore in walking distance to her residence.
13The appellant testified that the impoundment of her vehicle has caused her significant inconvenience. She also stated that the fees associated with the impoundment places financial strain on her. Although the Tribunal cannot consider these fees, I note the fact that her spouse is presently employed and they have been able to maintain the family home.
14I am sympathetic to the inconvenience that the impoundment created for the appellant, however, this does not meet the bar for exceptional hardship according the Regulation.
15Since the appellant did not satisfy the test that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, I do not need to consider the other provisions of s. 10 of the Regulation.
ORDER
16For the reasons set out above, pursuant to the Tribunal’s authority under s.50.2(5) the Act, I deny the appeal and confirm the impoundment order.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
__________________________
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
Released: November 29, 2019