Licence Appeal Tribunal
File Number: 13013/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:
Jessica Solimine Appellant
And
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Jacqueline Castel
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Jessica Solimine, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent
Place and Date of Hearing: By Teleconference December 22, 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW:
1A teleconference hearing was held on December 22, 2020 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45-day impoundment of her 2020 Hyundai, Elantra (the “vehicle”). The vehicle was impounded November 17, 2020 because it was being driven by a person whose licence was under suspension. The appellant is requesting that the Tribunal make a finding that the impoundment should be set aside and order the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to release the vehicle.
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 HTA.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
4The owner of a vehicle that has been impounded. pursuant to s. 55.1(1) of the HTA, may appeal the impoundment under s. 50.2 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 section 50.2(3) of the HTA. The appellant in this case appealed on the ground of 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 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, I do not need to consider any other requirements.
7The appellant testified that she is unemployed and has a five-month old baby. She stated that she has been living off of her savings and the only benefit she receives from the government is the Canada Child Benefit (CCB), which is a tax free monthly payment. The appellant testified that her savings are going to run out soon, and she purchased the vehicle to look for work. She stated that there is no public transportation in her community, and her mother has been purchasing groceries for her during the period of impoundment.
8The appellant also testified that she had to cancel a routine doctor’s appointment for her daughter during the period of impoundment, since she could not afford a taxi and did not have alternative transportation.
9There is no doubt that the appellant has been inconvenienced because of the impoundment. However, the evidence does not support exceptional hardship because she was unemployed prior to the impoundment, and she has been able to make alternative arrangements for groceries.
10In terms of there being no alternative transportation for the appellant to take her daughter to the doctor, pursuant to s. 10(1) of the Regulation, I considered whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of the appellant’s daughter, who is ordinarily transported by the vehicle, but concluded on the evidence that no such threat exists. Specifically, in response to a question from the respondent’s agent, the appellant confirmed that her daughter is in good health and that the appointment can be rescheduled.
11Accordingly, I find that the appellant has not established exceptional hardship within the meaning of the HTA.
ORDER:
12Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I deny the appeal and confirm the impoundment order.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Jacqueline Castel, Member
Released: December 23, 2020