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
Between:
Stephanie Morrison Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Theodore Crljenica
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Self-represented For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent
Place and date of hearing:
By teleconference January 22, 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1A hearing was held on January 22, 2020 by teleconference, to consider the Appellant’s appeal pursuant to section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA” or the “Act”).
2On December 10, 2019, the Appellant’s vehicle was impounded for 45 days pursuant to section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”). The Respondent, the Registrar, issued a Notice of Impoundment impounding the Appellant’s vehicle for a period of 45 days. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal is dated December 18, 2019.
3The appellant’s husband was driving the vehicle at the time of impoundment. His driving privileges were subject to a condition that prohibited him from driving a motor vehicle that is not equipped with an ignition interlock device. The respondent’s position is that the vehicle the appellant’s husband was driving was not so equipped.
4In her Notice of Appeal, the Appellant appealed on the grounds of due diligence and exceptional hardship. She also alleged that the road on which her husband was driving at the time of the impoundment was not a “highway” as defined by the Act, as it was a private road that had not been assumed by the municipality. As such the appellant’s position is that her husband did not violate section 55.1 of the Act.
5During the course of closing submissions, the discussion turned to the question of whether the appellant’s husband was driving on a private road and whether the vehicle was or was not equipped with an ignition interlock device.
6The respondent’s agent submitted that this tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider whether the impoundment was lawful i.e. – whether the appellant’s husband was driving on a “highway” or a private road, and whether there was any evidence that the appellant’s vehicle was not equipped with an interlock ignition device. I offered to adjourn the hearing until later in the day to allow the respondent’s agent time to discuss this with her colleagues in order to provide me with an analysis of the relevant sections of the Act and regulations, and to look for authorities on this point. After some further discussion the respondent’s agent advised me that the respondent was requesting that the tribunal allow the appeal on consent.
ORDER
7On consent, the appeal is allowed. The registrar is hereby ordered to release the appellant’s motor vehicle.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Theodore Crljenica, Member
RELEASED: January 31, 2020