R.L. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2019 CanLII 29127

Date: 2019-02-14

File Number: 11767/MVIA

Appeal under subsection 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act (Act), R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 from an Impoundment pursuant to section 55.1(3) of the Act

Between:

R.L.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Zahra Dhanani

Appearances:

For the Appellant: R.L., Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Sonia De Santis, Agent

HEARD by teleconference on: January 24, 2019

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW

1A teleconference hearing was held on January 24, 2019 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle. The vehicle was impounded on November 27, 2018 and was to be released to the appellant on January 3, 2019.

2The vehicle was impounded because she had lent her car to her boyfriend whose licence was suspended at the time.

3The appellant appeals the Registrar’s impoundment of her car on the ground of exceptional hardship.

CONCLUSION

4I find that the impoundment did not result in exceptional hardship within the meaning of s. 50.2 (a) & (d) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act” or the “HTA”).

ISSUE

5The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship to the appellant.

ANALYSIS

6The appellant argues that the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship because it made it more difficult for her to get to work and prenatal medical appointments.

7There are several grounds under which the appellant may appeal the impoundment. In this case, the appellant relied on section 50.2(3)(d) which provides as follows:

(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.

8Section 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.

9The 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.

10Subsection 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.”

11Pursuant to s. 10(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Tribunal shall not consider whether the impoundment will result in financial or economic loss unless the factors listed in s. 50.2(3) are met, which include a requirement that no alternative to the impoundment of the vehicle is available :

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.

12The appellant lives in [Ontario], which is a 10-minute drive to Kitchener and a 20-minute drive to Guelph. There is transit, however it would take close to 5 hours on transit to get to Guelph. The appellant works at a [Coffee Shop] in Guelph. While her car was impounded, she stayed with a friend in Guelph and either walked or took transit to work. The appellant only missed one shift due to the impoundment of her car.

13The appellant is eight months pregnant and without her vehicle she could not get to her prenatal appointments. She had just recently moved to Preston Heights from Drayton where her doctor is located. Drayton is very far and impossible to get to on transit. She had asked friends for rides, however they were not reliable and did not drive her when they had promised to do so.

14The appellant stated that her prenatal care appointments were not based on any threat or risks to the pregnancy but rather general checkups to make sure everything was on track.

15If the appellant had an emergency, she stated that she could take a taxi or Uber to the hospital in Cambridge where she will be delivering her baby.

16At the time of the hearing the appellant had already retrieved her car from the impound facility. The appellant used all the money she had saved for the upcoming birth of her child to get the car back.

17She has had a healthy pregnancy with no medical concerns. The respondent argued that the impoundment did not present any health and safety risks.

18I am sympathetic to the unfortunate situation the appellant is in. However, the appellant’s evidence does not support a finding of exceptional hardship as she had alternative methods of getting to work and to adequately mitigate any threat or loss to the appellant.

ORDER

19Pursuant to s. 50.2(5) of the HTA, I deny the appeal and confirm the impoundment order.