William R. Hipkiss v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2020 CanLII 51279

Date: 2020-07-14

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

Between:

William R. Hipkiss

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Adjudicator: D. Stephen Jovanovic, Associate Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: William R. Hipkiss

For the Respondent: No submissions requested

Heard by way of written submissions.

REASONS FOR RECONSIDERATION DECISION AND ORDER

1The appellant has requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released on June 18, 2020 dismissing his appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) regarding the impoundment of his motor vehicle.

2The appellant’s motor vehicle was impounded on May 12, 2020 on the grounds that the operator at time of the impoundment, a friend of the appellant’s, was driving with a suspended licence (the “Suspended Driver”). A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 90 days as this was the second impoundment of a vehicle owned by the appellant. On both occasions the same Suspended Driver, who lives in the same home as the appellant, was driving.

3In its June 18, 2020 decision, the Tribunal set out section 50.2(3) of the Act which provides the grounds by which the Tribunal may order the Registrar to release a motor vehicle. The four grounds are as follows:

(a) that the motor vehicle that is impounded was stolen at the time it was detained in order to be impounded;

(b) that the driver's licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension;

(c) that the owner of the motor vehicle exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver's licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension; or

(d) that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

4The Tribunal reviewed the facts as they related to each of these grounds and found that there was no basis for ordering the return of the appellant’s motor vehicle. Those findings need not be repeated in this decision.

5The appellant has requested a reconsideration of the decision under Rule 18 of the Tribunal’s rules and has submitted that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when its decision was rendered which he could not have previously obtained and which likely would have affected the result.

6In the appellant’s submissions in support of his request for a reconsideration, he questions the merits of the original decision and provides some information as to his changed circumstances. He no longer lives with the Suspended Driver, is in a very serious financial situation and has to secure work. He is in effect claiming, once again, that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

7In paragraph 8 of the original decision, the Tribunal wrote that “Pursuant to section 50.2 (4) of the ACT, the appellant cannot rely on the ground of exceptional hardship (subparagraph (d)) as he had another vehicle impounded prior to his current impoundment”.

8The appellant has not submitted any new evidence which likely would have affected the result in the original decision.

ORDER

9For the reasons set out above the request for reconsideration is dismissed and the impoundment is confirmed.