Licence Appeal Tribunal
Appeal Under Section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.8 from an impoundment of a motor vehicle pursuant to section 55.1 of the Act for driving while suspended
Between:
Aurel Donut
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
Decision and Order
Adjudicator:
Katherine Livingstone, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
No one appearing for the appellant
For the Respondent:
Sanjay Kapur, Agent
Hearing Date:
By teleconference on March 12, 2020
Overview
1The appellant, Aurel Donut, appeals the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle on the ground of exceptional hardship. The vehicle was impounded on February 7, 2020, because it was being driven by his son, Alex Donut, whose licence is under suspension. The appellant indicated his spouse required the vehicle to travel to and from her place of employment.
Issue
2The issue to be determined is whether the appellant established that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. I do not find exceptional hardship was established.
Analysis
3A telephone case conference was conducted on March 5, 2020 at which time the appellant and the respondent were both present on the line. The parties were advised they should be prepared to present their evidence and submissions on the date of the hearing.
4A date for the electronic hearing by telephone was subsequently set for March 12, 2020 at 1:30 pm. Notice of the hearing was sent to all parties via email on March 5, 2020. All information required to participate at the teleconference hearing were provided in the Notice.
5On March 12, 2020, at 1:30 pm, Mr. Kapur, agent for the Registrar, dialed into the conference as did an assigned court reporter. The appellant did not dial in. After waiting several minutes, I requested the case management officer (CMO) attempt to contact Mr. Donut. Minutes later I was advised by the CMO that she had attempted to contact the appellant by phone without success; however, she did leave the appellant an email message. Shortly before 2:00 pm the CMO tried again to reach the appellant by phone, again with no success.
6I waited on the line until 2:00 pm and the appellant did not dial in or attempt to contact the Tribunal in any manner.
7I indicated to the respondent’s agent that I was prepared to dismiss the appeal as abandoned.
8The respondent’s agent, although realizing the onus during a hearing was on the appellant, requested he be allowed to present evidence related to the manner in which the vehicle was impounded.
9I agreed to his request and he proceeded to introduce evidence of the appellant’s ownership of the impounded vehicle, the impoundment of the vehicle on February 7, 2020 and the suspension of the licence of the driver of the vehicle, including the Ministry of Transportation record of the driver.
10There was no evidence adduced with respect to the issue of exceptional hardship.
Order
11There was no evidence adduced upon which I could find the appellant suffered exceptional hardship.
12Additionally, although it is not necessary for me to do so I am satisfied the appellant’s vehicle was properly impounded pursuant to the appropriate provisions of the Highway Traffic Act as a result of an incident that occurred on February 7, 2020.
13For these reasons, pursuant to subsection 50.2 (5) of the Highway Traffic Act, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Katherine Livingstone, Member
Released: May 7, 2020