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
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:
Desarae Hamilton Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
Panel: Jennifer Friedland, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Self Represented
For the Respondent: Sonia De Santis, Agent
Place and date of hearing: By teleconference on July 7, 2020
REASONS FOR RELEASE OF VEHICLE
Overview
1Following a hearing by teleconference on July 7, 2020, I ordered the release of the appellant’s vehicle on the grounds that the impoundment would result in exceptional hardship. I indicated that my reasons would follow in writing. These are my reasons.
BACKGROUND
2The appellant’s 2013 Chrysler 200 (the “vehicle”) was detained and impounded on May 31, 2020 for 45 days under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act1 (the Act). This section allows a police officer to detain and then impound a vehicle if it is being driven by a person whose driver’s licence is suspended for a Criminal Code2-related reason. In this case, the vehicle had been taken by the appellant’s common-law spouse whose driver’s licence had been suspended for life following previous impaired driving convictions.
3The appellant appealed pursuant to 50.2(3) (d) of the Act on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
The Test for Exceptional Hardship
4The test for exceptional hardship is set out in Ontario Regulation 631/98 (“the Regulation”) which is a Regulation made under the Highway Traffic Act.
5In determining exceptional hardship, the Tribunal must first look to whether the appellant has an alternative to the impounded vehicle available. Section 10 (4) of the Regulation explains what this means:
In order to show that no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle is available under subsection (1) or clause (3) (a), the owner must demonstrate that every reasonable option has been considered and inquired into that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss to the person, including using another vehicle and making arrangements to do without any motor vehicle during the impound period.
6If there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, the Tribunal must then consider whether not having the impounded vehicle will result in a threat to health and safety as set out in s. 10 (1) of the Regulation, namely:
(a) a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle; or
(b) a threat to the public health and safety or to the environment or property of a community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used.
7[Sections 10 (2)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-631-98/latest/o-reg-63