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: 2020-04-06

Motion for an Order to Extend the time to file an Appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an impoundment pursuant to section 55.1 of the Act.

Between:

Patrick Maxwell Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION

Adjudicator: Stephen Scharbach, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: No one appearing

For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent

Heard by teleconference: March 26, 2020

OVERVIEW

1This is a motion brought by the appellant to extend the time to appeal the impoundment of his motor vehicle.

2The appellant’s vehicle was impounded on February 15, 2020 for 45 days.

3The appellant had 15 days from the date the vehicle was detained to file an appeal.

4The appeal deadline was March 1, 2020. The Tribunal received the appellant’s notice of appeal on March 9, 2020 – 8 days after the deadline had passed.

ISSUE

5Has the appellant established grounds to support his request for an extension of the time for filing an appeal?

DECISION

6The appellant’s motion to extend the deadline is denied.

7The onus is on the appellant to establish the grounds necessary to support his request for an extension. Although the appellant requested the motion and was given notice of the date and time that it would be heard, the appellant did not participate in the hearing.

8The appellant provided no evidence in support of his motion and therefore did not satisfy the onus to establish that an extension of the deadline was appropriate.

FACTS

9On February 15, 2020 the appellant’s vehicle was impounded for 45 days after it was discovered being driven by a driver whose driver’s licence was subject to a condition prohibiting the driver from operating a vehicle not equipped with an ignition interlock device.

10Under the Highway Traffic Act (the “Act”), the 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.¹

11However, there is a time limit for filing an appeal. A regulation made under the Act provides that an appeal of an impoundment “… shall be commenced by filing with the Tribunal a notice of appeal…within 15 days of the day the vehicle was detained…”²

12The Tribunal has jurisdiction to extend the time limit for filing an appeal. Section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act³ states that the Tribunal may extend a time limit “…if the Tribunal is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for applying for the extension and for granting relief…”.

13In this case, the appellant’s notice of appeal was filed with the Tribunal on March 9, 2020, just over a week after the appeal deadline had passed and the appellant therefore brought a motion asking that the Tribunal extend the appeal deadline.

14A hearing of the appellant’s motion was scheduled by teleconference and on March 20, 2020 both the appellant and the Registrar’s agent were given a “Notice of Motion Hearing” which set out the scheduled date and time of the hearing as well as the call-in details.

15The hearing was scheduled to start at 1:30 pm on March 26, 2020. The Registrar’s agent was present via teleconference, but the appellant did not call in.

16The appellant did not notify the Tribunal or the Registrar that he would not be participating so the hearing was adjourned for 30 minutes so that the Tribunal’s case management officer (“CMO”) could attempt to contact the appellant. Several attempts were made to reach the appellant by telephone, but the appellant did not answer.

17The Notice of Motion Hearing that was provided to the parties states, “If you do not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may make a decision on the motion in your absence and without further notice to you.” Since the appellant did not attend the hearing, did not request an adjournment, and provided no warning or explanation concerning his non-participation, the hearing of the motion continued in the appellant’s absence.

18The Registrar opposed the appellant’s motion to extend the appeal deadline.

ANALYSIS

19The appellant’s motion is denied. He has not met the onus of establishing that an extension of the appeal deadline in this case is appropriate.

20In Manuel v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002⁴ the Divisional Court described the analysis that the Tribunal should apply in determining whether reasonable grounds to support an extension are present.

21In summary the Divisional Court stated:

• The general rule is that an appeal deadline shall not be extended unless the requesting party can establish that the “justice of the case” requires an extension. The onus is on the requesting party to establish the facts necessary to support an extension.

• The following factors should be considered and weighed in determining whether the overall justice of the case requires an extension – a bona fide intention to appeal, length of the delay, prejudice to the other party, and the merits of the appeal.

22In this case the appellant provided no evidence to overcome the general rule that the appeal deadline should not be extended. He has not met the onus to establish that the justice of the case requires that the appeal deadline be extended.

ORDER

23Pursuant to section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, I deny the appellant’s motion to extend the time limit for filing an appeal in this case.

Footnotes

1. 1Highway Traffic Act, s. 50.2
2. 2Ontario Regulation 631/98, s. 9 (the “Regulation”)
3. 3Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sch. G
4. 42012 ONSC 1492