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
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:
Sharon Copegog
Appellant
And
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Asad Ali Moten
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent
Heard via teleconference: December 20, 2019
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
A. Overview
1The appellant, Sharon Copegog, appeals from the impoundment of her 2018 Ford. On November 14, 2019 the appellant’s son took her car without her knowledge. He was pulled over by police near the appellant’s home, and when it was discovered that he had a suspended licence, the car was impounded for 45 days.
2The appeal is made on the basis that the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle has caused exceptional hardship. She argues that not having her car has made it difficult for her to get to her physiotherapy appointments and to run her every day errands. In addition, it has made her reliant on others to get to and from work or to her appointments.
3The Registrar argues that there is no exceptional hardship because the appellant has alternatives available to her for the period of impoundment.
4After considering all of the evidence provided, and based on the reasons below, the Tribunal confirms the impoundment for 45 days.
B. ISSUES
5The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle has caused exceptional hardship.
C. EVIDENCE, LAW, and ANALYSIS
6The intent of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”) is to promote public safety by preventing unlicensed drivers from operating motor vehicles. Pursuant to s.55.1 of the HTA, a vehicle shall be detained and impounded where the licence of the person driving the vehicle is under suspension.
7An owner whose vehicle has been impounded can appeal to the Tribunal to have the Registrar release the vehicle on the basis of any of the grounds listed in s. 50.2 of the HTA. Appellants have the onus to establish that any of the grounds in s. 50.2 have been met. In this instance, the appellant appealed to the Tribunal based on s. 50.2(3)(d), which states:
s. 50.2(3) The only grounds on which an owner may appeal under subsection (1) and the only grounds on which the Tribunal may order the Registrar to release the motor vehicle are,
(d) that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
8Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the Regulation) provides the criteria to be considered when determining whether impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. Under the Regulation, the Tribunal may only consider financial or economic loss, loss of employment or employment opportunity, or loss of a training opportunity if the owner of the vehicle can demonstrate that:
There is no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle available;
The loss will be immediate, significant and lasting;
The impact of the loss will be upon a person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle; and,
The impact of the loss will be on someone other than the suspended driver whose driving resulted in the impoundment, and the loss is not suffered by the suspended driver.
9Inconvenience to any person is not exceptional hardship.
10The appellant testified that on the night her car was impounded, her son told her he was going to get a shovel to clear the snow from the driveway. She had not realised that he intended to drive to get a shovel. When she saw flashing lights at the bottom of the driveway she went outside to check and saw that her son, in her car, had been pulled over. The police were removing her mobility scooter from the car.
11On a daily basis the appellant goes to work and to physiotherapy. She testified that since the impoundment she has lost the independence of getting herself to and from work and appointments, and now has to rely on other people, colleagues sometimes, to give her rides. Walking long distances is challenging for her, as she uses a mobility scooter. For errands, such as groceries, the appellant will take a cab, or will send her son.
12The first question the Tribunal must consider is whether the appellant has a reasonable alternative to the impounded vehicle. In this case, I find that a reasonable alternative exists, even if it is not a convenient one. The appellant testified that she feels like her wings have been clipped because of the loss of her car. She would often de-stress by putting on some music and driving around. This is certainly understandable, but is at most a temporary inconvenience.
13With respect to a reasonable alternative, the appellant has been successful in moving her appointments or getting the assistance of others to get to work or therapy. The appellant testified that she does not like to seek rides from her colleagues because she is the boss and does not like to impose. On the other hand, her work is not far from her home so the imposition is minimal. While it may be inconvenient, or even challenging, having to rely on others does not rise to the level of creating exceptional hardship.
14Therefore, with a reasonable alternative available to the appellant, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to consider the remaining elements of the test. In the event that I am wrong, the appellant also testified that the impoundment is expensive and she is unsure whether she can afford it. This is, no doubt, a very real concern of financial or economic loss. In this case, however, there is insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to conclude that the risk of financial or economic loss would be immediate, significant, and lasting.
15Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has not satisfied her onus in demonstrating that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship as described in section 10 of the Regulation.
ORDER:
16After considering all of the evidence provided, and based on the reasons below, the Tribunal confirms the impoundment for 45 days.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Asad Moten, Member
Released: February 20, 2020