C.A. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2019 CanLII 25767

Date: 2019-01-07

File Number: 11734/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:

C.A.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Zahra Dhanani

Appearances:

For the Appellant: C.A., Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent

Place and Date of Hearing: By Teleconference

December 20, 2018

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW:

1A teleconference hearing was held on December 20, 2018 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45 day impoundment of her 2017 Nissan A2B (the “vehicle”). The vehicle was impounded on November 10, 2018 and was to be released to the appellant on December 25, 2018.

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 s. 50.2(3) of the HTA. The appellant in this case appealed on the ground that the impoundment has caused her 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 s. 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 as the vehicle owner will not have established the first requirement to show exceptional hardship.

7Subsection 10(4) of the Regulation 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.”

8Pursuant to s. 10(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Tribunal shall not consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to any person:

In determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment under section 55.1 of the Act, the Tribunal shall not, subject to subsection (3), consider whether the impoundment will result in, (b) financial or economic loss to any person.

9The appellant’s vehicle was being driven by her “friend”, J.O., at the time it was detained and impounded. At that time, J.O.’s driver’s licence was suspended.

10The appellant is a single mother and lives in [ … ], Ontario with her three children aged: 19, 17 and 10. There is public transportation, including the GO Bus. Once her car was impounded, she and her children used public transport to get to school and work. It took longer to get where they were going but, ultimately, they were able to continue their lives without much disturbance to their existing plans.

11The appellant is employed full-time and makes approximately $2000.00 per month, she receives a child-tax benefit of $600.00/month for a total income of approximately $2600/month. Her housing costs are $2200.00 monthly, so she only has a surplus of $400.00 from which to buy groceries, pay for transportation, clothing and all other expenses.

12She often borrows money from family to pay for her and her children’s essential needs. She has no bank loans or debt other than her car lease. Since the impoundment of her car, the amount she has borrowed from her family has increased from the norm to accommodate for the extra transportation costs.

13The appellant has no savings and states that she is unable to get loans from the bank because of her low income, lack of assets and credit issues.

14The appellant used to drive to work every day. She would also drive her eldest daughter to a more convenient location so that she could get to college faster. The car would also allow the appellant to pick up her youngest child after school. Taking transit has turned her 15 minute commute into an hour long journey. She is no longer able to do any of the things she used to do for her children with her car.

15There 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.

16The main hardship caused by the impoundment is the cost of getting the car released from the impound. The appellant stated that she has no money and cannot borrow that amount from her family or the bank. Unfortunately, the law does not allow me to consider the cost of the impound as part of exceptional hardship.

17I am sympathetic to the appellant’s situation and the inconvenience in which she found herself because of the impoundment. However, the appellant’s 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:

18Pursuant to s. 50.2(5) of the HTA, I deny the appeal and confirm the impoundment order.