Appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an impoundment of a motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Act for driving while suspended.
Between:
P.P.
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
MOTION DECISION
Adjudicator: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
Appearances:
For the Appellant: P.P., Self-represented
For the Respondent: Sonia De Santis, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: June 5, 2019
A. Overview
1The appellant seeks to appeal the impoundment of his motor vehicle on November 23, 2018 for a period of 45 days ending on January 7, 2019, pursuant to s. 55.1(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (“Act”). The appeal period in the Act is 15 days.
2The time for filing appellant’s appeal expired on December 8, 2018. The Tribunal received the appellant’s Notice of Appeal on January 3, 2019. On January 7, 2019 the appellant filed a motion requesting an Order from the Tribunal extending the time for filing his appeal outside the legislated timeline because he said the vehicle was stolen when it was impounded and at the time of the theft the appellant was in Alberta.
3The appellant’s motion to extend the time to file his appeal was heard on February 11, 2019 by teleconference. The appellant’s motion was denied because, in part, he did not attend at the hearing of the motion and as a result the Tribunal found there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the appellant had a good faith or bona fide intention to appeal.
4After the hearing of the motion it came to the Tribunal’s attention that the Notice of Case Conference, at which the motion was decided, sent to the parties incorrectly stated the date of the case conference. After receiving submissions from both parties, in a Reconsideration Decision dated April 16, 2019, Vice-Chair Theoharis decided that the rules of procedural fairness were violated at the hearing of the motion because the appellant did not have an opportunity to be heard. A rehearing of the appellant’s motion for an extension of time was ordered.
5The rehearing took place on June 5, 2019 by teleconference. The appellant was present at the rehearing.
6On consent of both parties, the Tribunal heard the appellant’s motion for an extension of time and the appeal at the same time. The Tribunal indicated that if the motion for extension of time to file the appeal was unsuccessful, there would be no decision on the merits of the appeal. If the motion for extension was successful, then there would be a decision made by the Tribunal on the motion and also on the merits of the appeal.
7The grounds for the appeal are that the vehicle was stolen at the time it was detained to be impounded and that the impoundment has resulted in exceptional hardship to him.
B. ISSUES:
8The issues to be addressed are:
a. Is the Tribunal satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for granting an extension of time for the appellant to file his appeal?
b. If the time for filing of the appellant’s appeal is extended, was the appellant’s vehicle stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded or alternatively, did the impoundment result in exceptional hardship on the appellant.
C. CONCLUSION:
9I find that the appellant failed to establish reasonable grounds for an extension of the time to file his appeal. The appellant’s motion is denied. As the appellant’s motion for an extension of time is dismissed, I do not need to consider the merits of the appeal except as they relate to the appellant’s motion.
D. LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Is the Tribunal satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for applying for the extension?
10Section 9 of the Regulation Long-Term Vehicle Impoundment Under Section 55.1 of the Act, O. Reg 631/98 states that an appeal of an impoundment under s. 55.1 of the Act must be filed within 15 days of the impoundment.
11The appellant’s motion is to extend the time for filing his appeal. Pursuant to section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, the Tribunal may extend the time to file an appeal if the Tribunal is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for applying for the extension and for granting relief.
12To succeed in his motion the appellant must show that there are reasonable grounds for the Tribunal to grant the extension of time. The Tribunal must consider the following as set out in Manuel v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, 2012 ONSC 1492 (Div. Ct.) when deciding whether to grant an extension of time to file an appeal:
The existence of a bona fide intention to appeal [within the appeal period];
The length of the delay;
Prejudice to the other party; and
The merits of the appeal.
13The Divisional Court determined that the factors to be considered are simply a guide to assist in determining the justice of the case.
Evidence
14The appellant’s vehicle was impounded on November 23, 2018. The Tribunal received the appellant’s Notice of Appeal on January 3, 2019. On January 7, 2019 the appellant filed a motion requesting an Order from the Tribunal extending the time for filing his appeal outside the legislated timeline because he said the vehicle was stolen when it was impounded. Appellant’s Notice of Motion states “…at the time of this car theft I was in Alberta”.
15The appellant testified that he was working in Fort St. John, British Columbia on November 23, 2018 when Ontario Police Constable R. telephoned him and informed him that his 2002 Cadillac had been impounded. He said that Constable R. told him there was a way to appeal and that the appellant could go online and find out about it. The appellant said he did not bother going online because he telephoned the impound facility and the owner was adamant that the vehicle would be there for 45 days. The appellant said he decided he wanted to appeal when he got home to Ontario on December 23, 2018. He drove to Ontario from British Columbia in another vehicle that he owns. Appellant testified that at the time of impoundment his mail was being forwarded from Ontario to his Alberta address.
16The appellant said he paid $4,200.00 on January 8, 2019 to get the vehicle out of impoundment and the vehicle was not in the best of condition and he was not happy with it. He got $1,500.00 from insurance.
17With respect to the merits of the appeal, the appellant said he did not want to testify about it anymore.
18The appellant said he was totally upset and has washed his hands of the appeal. He said that he was withdrawing the motion and the appeal and did not want to continue with the appeal. He asked that the Tribunal refund his $100.00 and was advised by the Tribunal that this was not possible.
19The respondent’s agent indicated that she did not wish to make submissions on the motion or on the merits of the appeal in view of the appellant’s withdrawal of his motion and his intended appeal.
Analysis
20In an attempt to be as fair as possible to this self-represented appellant, I have considered the appellant’s testimony prior to his withdrawal of his motion and the intended appeal.
21Considering the factors set out in Manuel v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, I find firstly that the appellant has not demonstrated a bona fide or good faith intention to appeal within the fifteenth day appeal period for the following reasons. The time for filing his appeal expired on December 8, 2019. The appellant filed his appeal on January 3, 2019 and his motion to extend the time for filing the appeal on January 7, 2019. The appellant testified that he decided he wanted to appeal when he got to Ontario on December 23, 2018 and therefore his intention to appeal was formed some 15 days after the legislated timeframe for filing an appeal even though Constable R. had told him on November 23, 2018 there was a way to appeal and that the appellant could go online and find out. The appellant said he did not bother going online.
22I find secondly, the appellant’s delay in submitting the Notice of Appeal and Motion to extend the time for appeal is lengthy. The Notice of Appeal was received by the Tribunal on January 3, 2019, some 26 days after the expiry of the appeal period and four days before the release of the vehicle from impoundment.
23Thirdly, given that respondent’s agent did not make submissions on prejudice, I make no finding on prejudice to the respondent.
24Fourthly, I find there is no possibility of appellant’s appeal succeeding on the merits in view of the appellant’s withdrawal of his motion and his intended appeal, and his refusal to testify about the grounds for his appeal.
25The burden is on the appellant to demonstrate reasonable grounds to grant an extension of time and he has not done so.
26I find that the appellant has failed to establish reasonable grounds for an extension of time to file his appeal. The appellant’s motion is denied.
E. ORDER:
27The appellant’s motion is denied.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
Released: June 18, 2019```