Licence Appeal Tribunal
File Number: 12625/MVIA
Appeal under subsection 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an Impoundment pursuant to Section 55.1(3) of the Act
Between:
Laura Judge
Appellant
And
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Jacqueline Castel
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Laura Judge, Self-represented (Did not Attend)
For the Respondent: Sonia De Santis, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: May 13, 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW:
1A teleconference hearing was held on May 13, 2020 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45 day impoundment of her 2018 KIA Optimum (the “vehicle”). The vehicle was impounded on January 31, 2019 because it was being driven by the appellant’s friend, whose licence was under suspension. The vehicle was eligible for release on March 16, 2020.
2The appellant made arrangements with the impound facility to pay the impound fees, and the vehicle was released to the appellant in April 2020.
PRELIMINARY MATTER
3The appellant did not call into the teleconference hearing, despite having been emailed a Notice of Hearing. She could not be reached on the date of the hearing. She did not send any communication to the Tribunal or the respondent’s representative prior to the hearing, indicating that she would be unable to attend or requesting an adjournment. The appellant also did not call into two case conferences, one on April 14, 2020 and another on April 29, 2020, despite having been emailed notices of these case conferences. She did not send any communication to the Tribunal or the respondent’s representative prior to either of these case conferences indicating that she would be unable to attend.
4Accordingly, Ms De Santis, the respondent’s agent, requested that the hearing proceed in the absence of the appellant. Given that the appellant received notice of the hearing, and has not communicated with the Tribunal or the respondent’s representative since filing a Notice of Appeal on February 7, 2020, I agreed to proceed on an ex parte basis.
ISSUE:
5Based on the appellant’s Notice of Appeal, the issue to be determined is whether the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship.
CONCLUSION:
6On the evidence before me at the hearing, I find that the impoundment did not result in exceptional hardship within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act” or the “HTA”).
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
7Under the HTA, where a police officer is satisfied that a person was driving while suspended under certain provisions of the Act, the officer is required to detain and impound the vehicle. Section 55.1 sets out the scope of the authority and the duration of the period of impoundment. If there has been no previous impoundment in the last two years, the impound period is 45 days.
8The owner of a vehicle that has been impounded, pursuant to s. 55.1 of the HTA, may pursuant to s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment and request an order that the Registrar release the vehicle. In this case the vehicle has already been released. However, if I find that one or more of the grounds of appeal have been met, as a practical matter, the respondent would be required to reimburse the appellant for the impound fees for the 45 day period of impoundment.
9There are limited grounds on which an owner may appeal an impoundment as set out in section 50.2(3) of the HTA. The appellant, in this case, appealed on the ground that the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship.
Exceptional Hardship
10Section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act provides that a vehicle impoundment may be appealed where “the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.”
11Section 10 of Ontario Regulation 631/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that I must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment. In order to establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement set out in 10(1) of the Regulation is that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. If I find that there is an alternative to the impounded vehicle, then I need not consider any other requirements.
12The appellant did not meet the onus of establishing that there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle. Based on her Notice of Appeal, the appellant resides in a city with public transportation, taxis and UBER. Given that alternative modes of transportation were available to the appellant during the period of impoundment, the evidence does not support exceptional hardship. For this reason, I do not need to consider the other provisions of section 10 of the regulation.
ORDER:
13Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I deny the appeal and confirm the impoundment order.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
___________________________
Jacqueline Castel, Member
Released: May 13, 2020