Appeal under section 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:
Rory Walker
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Order Made by: Stephen Scharbach, Member
OvervieW
1This is a decision on two preliminary motions brought by the parties in an appeal from the impoundment of the appellant’s motor vehicle.
2The Appellant’s motion seeks an extension of the 15-day deadline to file his notice of appeal.
3The Registrar’s motion asks that the appeal be dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider an impoundment appeal where, as in this case, the appeal is commenced after the vehicle has been released from impoundment.
4At an earlier case conference, the Tribunal ordered that the parties serve and file written motions and supporting materials and that both motions will be heard in writing.
5I have reviewed those materials and this is my decision on both preliminary motions.
ISSUES
Does this Tribunal lack jurisdiction under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, (“HTA”) to consider an impoundment appeal in this case because the appeal is or would be commenced after the impounded vehicle is released?
Should the 15-day period under the HTA for filing a notice of appeal be extended?
DECISION
6The Registrar’s motion to dismiss is granted. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under the HTA to consider this appeal because the impoundment has ended and the vehicle has been released.
7The appellant’s motion for an extension of time is dismissed. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal and extending the deadline for filing the appeal would serve no useful purpose.
THE LAW
8The right to appeal an impoundment is provided in section 50.2(1) of the HTA which states:
The owner of a vehicle that is impounded … may appeal the impoundment to the Tribunal. (emphasis added)
9The Tribunal’s powers on an appeal are limited. It may either:
confirm the impoundment or
order the vehicle to be released (HTA s. 50.2(5)).
10If, after an appeal, the Tribunal orders the vehicle to be released, the Registrar shall pay the impoundment cost on behalf of the owner. (s.50.2(7)).
11The deadline for commencing an appeal is set out in Ontario Regulation 631/98, s. 9 which states:
An appeal to the Tribunal…with respect to the impoundment of a motor vehicle…shall be commenced by filing with the Tribunal a notice of appeal…within 15 days after the vehicle was detained…”
12Finally, this Tribunal has been given the statutory ability to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal “…if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds”. (Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O., c. 12, Sch. G).
THE IMPOUNDMENT
13The appellant’s vehicle was impounded for 45 days on May 11, 2019. The appellant was stopped by police and his driver’s licence was apparently recorded in MTO records as being under suspension.
14According to the Appellant, he moved to British Columbia (“BC”) in 1999 and his Ontario driver’s licence was transferred to BC. However, that transfer was not properly recorded in MTO’s records and later, when he lost his licence in BC in 2006 due to a drinking and driving offence, his Ontario licence was recorded as being under suspension.
15The appellant eventually recovered his BC driver’s licence in 2014 but MTO driver’s licence records continued to show that the Appellant had a suspended Ontario driver licence.
16According to the Appellant he was able to clear up the confusion with the MTO and his vehicle was released from impoundment after 11 days on May 21, 2019. However, he was forced to pay $1217 in impound fees.
17The Appellant attempted to appeal the impoundment by filing a notice of appeal with this Tribunal. According to the date stamped notice of appeal, it was filed with the Tribunal on May 29, 2019 - after the 15-day deadline for appeal and after the vehicle was released and no longer impounded.
18The Appellant states in his late filed notice of appeal, “I am appealing this impound to try to recoup the impound costs that I have incurred”.
TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION
19The Registrar argues that although the HTA provides an owner with a right to appeal an impoundment that right expires once the vehicle is released.
20I agree with that view and conclude that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider the Appellant’s appeal. Since the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal, the Appellant’s request for an extension of the time period for filing the appeal is denied.
21This issue was considered by this Tribunal in a recent case whose facts were similar to the present case1. The Tribunal concluded that the right to an impoundment appeal is only available to an owner who commences an appeal while the vehicle is still impounded. Once the vehicle is released, the right of appeal is extinguished. I agree and adopt the Tribunal’s reasoning in that case.
22Essentially, that interpretation is based on a reading of s. 50.2 of the HTA, the provision that gives a right of appeal to the owner of an impounded vehicle. In summary:
Section 50.2(1) states that “The owner of a vehicle that is impounded … may appeal the impoundment to the Tribunal.”
The use of the word “is”, instead of “is or has been”, or “is or was”, indicates that the right of appeal is restricted to owners whose vehicle is currently impounded and does not extend to owners whose vehicle was, but is no longer, impounded.
The Tribunal’s powers on an appeal are restricted to either confirming the impoundment or ordering the Registrar to release the vehicle (s. 50.2(5)). The Tribunal cannot make any other decision in this type of appeal.
That suggests that an impoundment appeal is intended to be a pathway by which an owner can have his/her vehicle released from impoundment if the owner can establish one of the four specified grounds for appeal.
It is not meant to be a means by which an owner can obtain compensation for a wrongful impoundment.
MOTION TO EXTEND APPEAL DEADLINE
23The Appellant’s motion seeks to extend the deadline for filing his appeal and, as noted above, the Tribunal does have the ability to extend that deadline if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds.
24In this case, I decline to grant that motion. There are no reasonable grounds to extend the deadline given that I have concluded that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. There seems to be little point in extending the appeal deadline when the Tribunal lacks the legal authority to consider the appeal in any event.
ORDER
25The Registrar’s motion to dismiss the present proceeding is granted. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under the HTA to consider this appeal.
26The appellant’s motion for an extension of time is dismissed.
27Pursuant to Rule 3.4 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure (October 17, 2017) I dismiss this appeal without a hearing because the appeal relates to matters that are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Stephen Scharbach
Released: July 30, 2019