Licence Appeal Tribunal
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario
Tribunal d’appel en matière de permis Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario
Date: 2020-03-26
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 in contravention of a condition prohibiting driving a vehicle not equipped with an ignition interlock device.
Between:
Sandra Andrino Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Stephen Scharbach, Member
Appearances: For the Appellant: Sandra Andrino, Self-represented For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent
Heard by teleconference: March 18, 2020
Overview
1The appellant appeals a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to impound her vehicle, a 2014 BMW BX3, on February 6, 2020 for 45 days.
2The appellant’s vehicle is not equipped with an ignition interlock device. It was impounded after police discovered it being driven by the appellant’s husband whose licence was subject to a condition prohibiting him from driving a vehicle not equipped with an ignition interlock device.
3The appellant appeals on the single ground that the impoundment has resulted in exceptional hardship.
ISSUE
4Should the Tribunal order the Registrar to release the appellant’s vehicle because the impoundment has resulted in exceptional hardship?
DECISION
5The impoundment is confirmed. Alternatives to the impounded vehicle are available to the appellant. Although the impoundment has resulted in stress and significant inconvenience, it has not resulted in exceptional hardship.
THE LAW
6Under section 55.1(1)2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), a police officer is required to impound a motor vehicle if the officer is satisfied that it was being driven by a person in contravention of a condition that prohibits the driver from driving a motor vehicle not equipped with an ignition interlock device.
7The owner may appeal the impoundment to this Tribunal and, after holding a hearing, the Tribunal may either confirm the impoundment or order the Registrar to release the vehicle.
8Section 50.2(3) of the Act specifies that there are only five permissible grounds on which an impoundment can be appealed. The Appellant’s single ground for appeal in this case is “that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship”.
9A regulation made under the Act lists certain considerations that the Tribunal shall consider, and others that the Tribunal shall not consider, in determining whether an impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.1
10According to that Regulation, the Tribunal is required to consider whether no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available and if none is available whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health and safety or any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle. The Regulation states that the Tribunal shall not consider whether the impoundment results in inconvenience to any person.
11In order to show that no alternative is available, the Regulation provides that the owner must demonstrate that every reasonable option has been considered and inquired into that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat to the person, including using another vehicle and arranging to do without the impounded vehicle while it is impounded.
FACTS
12According to the Registrar’s records, there are two vehicles registered in the appellant’s name – a 2014 BMW BX3 (“impounded vehicle”), and a 2014 BMW 75X. The impounded vehicle is normally driven by the appellant and the BMW 75X is normally driven by the appellant’s husband which is equipped with an ignition interlock device (“device”).
13The appellant states that the impoundment of her vehicle has caused her exceptional hardship mainly in that it has affected her ability to have her medical condition monitored on a regular basis. She explained that in October 2019 she was hospitalised for three weeks due to a blood clot in her brain. That condition increases the risk of stroke and after being released from the hospital she was placed on a blood thinning medication.
14That medication must be closely monitored, and she must travel from her home in Kitchener to a clinic in Guelph, Ontario (a 40-minute drive) every three weeks to have her blood checked. She is given a prescription for the medication until the next test which varies in dosage depending on the test results.
15According to the appellant, the Guelph clinic is open Monday to Fridays during office hours only. Her husband works Monday to Friday in King City, about 1 ½ hours away and he cannot regularly drive her to the clinic due to his work commitments. He has taken a day off work and driven her to the clinic once, on another occasion she was able to get her sister who lives in Guelph to drive her and, on another occasion, she used a public bus. She has had to cancel one appointment and re-schedule to a date when she can arrange transportation.
16The appellant also stated that she returned to work as a dental hygienist in late February 2020. She would normally drive to work but lately she has taken the bus. However, the appellant states that due to another underlying medical condition she is allergic to the cold which makes her joints and bones ache and irritates her skin. Walking or taking the bus in the cold weather is very uncomfortable for her. The appellant stated that she struggles each day with getting her daughter ready for school and taking a public bus to and from work.
ANALYSIS
17The impoundment is confirmed.
18In this case, there are alternative means of transportation available to the appellant. With respect to work, the appellant has been able to manage, although uncomfortably, by public bus. She also lives in Kitchener, a relatively large urban area where taxis and ride for hire services are available.
19With respect to attending the Guelph clinic to have her blood tested and medication adjusted, the appellant has been able to attend with the help of her husband, sister and use of public transportation. In other words, alternatives to the impounded vehicle are available to the appellant.
20I have no doubt that it has been stressful and inconvenient for the appellant to attend the appointments in Guelph without the use of her personal vehicle. However, the Regulation specifically prohibits the Tribunal from considering inconvenience to any person when determining whether an impoundment will result exceptional hardship.
21In summary, I conclude that alternatives to the impounded vehicle are available to the appellant and, as a result, the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship.
ORDER
22Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s motor vehicle.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Stephen Scharbach, Member
Released: March 26, 2020
Footnotes
- Ontario Regulation 631/98, s. 10 (the “Regulation”)```