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: 2020-03-02

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:

Ela Perlman

Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Stephen Scharbach, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Ela Perlman., Self-represented

For the Respondent: Stella Vellocci, Agent

Place and date of hearing:

Teleconference Hearing February 19, 2020

Overview

1The Appellant appeals a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to impound her vehicle, a Honda Pilot, on January 4, 2020 for 90 days after it was discovered being driven by a driver whose licence was under suspension.

2The Appellant appeals on the single ground that the impoundment has resulted in exceptional hardship.

ISSUE

3Should the Tribunal order the Registrar to release the Appellant’s vehicle because the impoundment has resulted in exceptional hardship?

DECISION

4The impoundment is confirmed. Exceptional hardship is not available as a ground for appeal if a vehicle owned by an appellant has been previously impounded under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act (“Act”). In this case another vehicle owned by the Appellant was impounded in June 2019.

THE LAW

5Under section 55.1(1) of 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 whose driver’s licence has been suspended.

6The 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.

7Section 50.2(3) of the Act specifies that there are only four 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”.

8However, that ground of appeal is not available to an owner if there has been a previous impoundment of an owner’s vehicle under s. 55.1. That restriction is contained in s. 50.2(4) of the Act which states that the exceptional hardship ground for appeal “does not apply if there was a previous impoundment under section 55.1 with respect to any motor vehicle then owned by the same owner.”

FACTS

9The impoundment records indicate that the Appellant has had two vehicles impounded which were registered in her name; a 2016 Honda Pilot impounded on January 4, 2020 (current impoundment), and a 2013 Dodge Caravan impounded on June 28, 2019 (prior impoundment).

10The current impoundment relates to the Appellant’s Honda Pilot, impounded under s. 55.1 of the Act when the police discovered it being driven by AP, the Appellant’s former partner, whose licence was then under suspension. According to the Appellant, she was not present when he took the vehicle and he took it without her permission.

11The prior impoundment occurred about 7 months earlier. On June 28, 2019 the Appellant’s Dodge Caravan, was impounded under s. 55.1 when it was discovered by police being driven by AP whose licence was then under suspension.

12According to the Appellant, the Dodge and the Honda were family vehicles, and both were registered in the appellant’s name. The Appellant and AP separated and in the course of that separation, AP took the Dodge and the Appellant kept the Honda. However, ownership of both vehicles remained in the Appellant’s name.

13Although the Dodge remained in the Appellant’s name, it was used solely by AP as his own vehicle. The Appellant states that she was unaware that the Dodge had been impounded until she was informed by the Ministry in connection with these proceedings.

ANALYSIS

14The appeal is denied, and the impoundment is confirmed because exceptional hardship is not available as a ground for appeal where a previous vehicle owned by an Appellant has been impounded under s. 55.1 of the Act. In this case, a vehicle owned by the Appellant was impounded under s. 55.1 approximately 7 months before the present impoundment.

15Since I cannot consider exceptional hardship a ground for appeal, the impoundment is confirmed.

16I have no doubt that the impoundment has made things much more difficult for the Appellant and her family. I also acknowledge her feeling of unfairness at having to bear the inconvenience, stress and additional expenses resulting from an impoundment in which she was not the suspended driver and was not present or gave permission when the vehicle was taken.

17However, the Appellant is not left entirely without a remedy. Section 55.1(27) of the Act gives the owner of an impounded vehicle the right to recover losses (which may include the cost of the impoundment itself) from the person whose suspended driving resulted in the impoundment. That section states:

The owner of a motor vehicle that is impounded under this section may bring an action against the driver of the motor vehicle at the time the motor vehicle was detained under this section to recover any cost or other losses incurred by the owner in connection with the impoundment.

ORDER

18Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s motor vehicle.