Licence Appeal Tribunal
File Number: 11856/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 of the Act
Between:
A.G.
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Harriet Lewis, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: A.G., Appellant
For the Respondent: Steven Grootenboer, Agent
Heard by teleconference: February 21, 2019
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1A teleconference hearing was held on February 21, 2019, to consider the appellant’s appeal of the impoundment of her 2004 Chevrolet Colorado pick - up truck. The vehicle was impounded on January 17, 2019 and is eligible to be returned to the appellant on March 3 2019, upon payment of the towing and impoundment charges.
ISSUES
2The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment has resulted in exceptional hardship to the appellant.
CONCLUSION
3On the evidence before me at the hearing, I find that the impoundment has not resulted in exceptional hardship as defined in section 50.2(3)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act R.S.O. c. H.8 1990, (“Act”).
EVIDENCE
4The appellant, A.G. is a single mother of three children, two sons and a five month old baby girl. On the day the vehicle was impounded, she had loaned it to E.C., the husband of a close friend. E.C. owns a glass installation business and borrowed the vehicle because his company vehicle was being repaired and he had to pick up work materials for a job he was to do the following day. On that day J.C. was working with E.C. Before the end of the workday E.C. received a call from his wife to return home for an emergency, and after arriving home, he asked his co-worker J.C. to return the vehicle to its owner.
5J.C. was stopped by police and found to have been driving with a suspended licence, as a result of which A.G.’s vehicle was impounded.
6A.G. is not employed, and is supported by public assistance. She gets some support from the baby’s father who purchases diapers and other necessities for the child. Prior to having her baby, A.G. was enrolled in a college course to become an addictions and community service worker and hopes to return to her studies when her child is older.
7Her oldest child is able to walk to school. During the period of impoundment her middle child has either been driven to school by a neighbour, or walked there. She was able to make her appointment for the baby’s inoculation by taking public transit, although it was difficult as the doctor’s office is a distance away. A.G. has relied on her mother for transportation and other assistance from time to time. It has been a difficult time and the hardship arises because not having her vehicle has “changed her life around” and required her to find alternate ways of doing things.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
8Section 10(1) of Ontario Regulation 631/9 (“the Regulation”) requires that in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment under s. 55.1 of the Act, I must consider “whether no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle is available”. The burden of proving exceptional hardship rests on the appellant, and the test set out in s.10 (4) is strict:
“in order to show that no alternative to the impounded motor
vehicle is available under subsection (1)…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 impoundment period.”
9There is no question that A.G. and her children have had to change their routines and have had some difficulties in doing so. However, A.G. has been able to see to her family’s needs by making arrangements to use public transportation in some circumstances and enlisting the help of friends and family in others.
10Given that arrangements for alternate forms of transportation have been made for day – to - day activities, I cannot find that the impoundment has caused exceptional hardship in this case.
ORDER
11Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Harriet Lewis, Member
Released: March 18, 2019