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: 2020-08-11

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:

Ray Deafy Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Stephen Scharbach, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Ray Deafy, Self-Represented For the Respondent: Sonya De Santis, Agent

Date of Teleconference Hearing: July 17, 2020

Overview

1Mr. Ray Deafy (“appellant”), appeals the impoundment of his 2015 Dodge Caravan (“vehicle”). It was impounded on June 4, 2020 for 45 days when it was discovered being driven by the appellant’s son whose driver’s licence was under suspension.

2The appellant appeals the impoundment on the single ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

DECISION

3The impoundment is confirmed. The impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship. Alternatives to the impounded vehicle are available to meet the transportation needs of the appellant and his partner, and the impoundment will not result in a threat to their health and safety.

THE LAW

4Under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, (“Act”), a police officer shall impound a motor vehicle for 45 days if the officer is satisfied that it was being driven by a driver whose licence is under suspension for certain reasons.

5The owner of an impounded vehicle may appeal the impoundment to this Tribunal, and on an appeal, the Tribunal may either confirm the impoundment or order the Registrar to release the vehicle.

6The Act allows only five grounds on which an owner may appeal, and they include the ground upon which the appellant relies in this case – that the impoundment will result in “exceptional hardship”.

7Section 10 of Ontario Regulation 631/98 (“Regulation”) provides that in determining whether an impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, the Tribunal “shall” consider whether an alternative to the impounded vehicle is available. If no alternative is available, the Tribunal is required to consider whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle.

8The Regulation states that the Tribunal shall not consider inconvenience to any person and may not consider financial loss unless the owner demonstrates that, among other criteria, no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available.

9In order to show that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available, the Regulation requires the owner to demonstrate that every other reasonable option has been considered, including using another vehicle or making arrangements to do without the vehicle during the impound period.

EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP

10The only issue in this case is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

11According to the Regulation, I must consider whether no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available and if not, whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health and safety of anyone ordinarily transported by the vehicle.

12The appellant is 66 years old and lives in the City of Thunder Bay, Ontario with his son and his partner Joan Ignace. Both the appellant and Ms. Ignace provided testimony at the hearing.

13The impounded vehicle is owned by the appellant. It is the only vehicle in the household and is the primary means of transportation for the appellant and Ms. Ignace.

14With respect to alternative transportation, both the appellant and Ms. Ignace are pensioners and use the impounded vehicle primarily for shopping, getting groceries and household supplies, and picking up medications. They do not rely on the vehicle to get to work. The City of Thunder Bay operates a public transit bus system with various routes. The appellant and Ms. Ignace have access to the system - there is a bus stop directly across the street from the appellant’s home.

15Neither the appellant nor Ms. Ignace have a disability or health concern that prevents them from using the bus. In fact, since the impoundment they have used the public bus to shop at a Walmart (about a 20-minute bus ride), and to pick up medications (a longer ride involving one transfer). Other times they have used a taxi.

16The appellant testified that he has difficulty getting on the bus and complained that he can’t get where he wants without having to wait – sometimes for long periods - for the bus. I have no doubt that the City buses are inconvenient and uncomfortable compared to the appellant’s own vehicle. However, as mentioned, the Regulation specifically prohibits me from considering inconvenience in deciding whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

17Regarding whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health and safety of the appellant or Ms. Ignace (or any other person), there was no evidence to suggest that either suffered from a chronic health condition or was at risk of a sudden health emergency that would require immediate access to the impounded vehicle. Since the impoundment, both have been able to get medical attention and pick up medication at their pharmacy by bus. The appellant recently had a fall and was able to get to a local hospital by taxi. After he was treated, he was able to attend a nearby walk-in clinic to have his stitches removed.

18In summary, I conclude that alternatives to the impounded vehicle are available to reasonably meet the transportation needs of the appellant and Ms. Ignace and the impoundment will not result in a threat to their health health and safety.

19The appellant also stated that the impoundment will result in a financial loss to him. The appellant and Ms. Ignace get by on their pensions and the impoundment fees (estimated to be just under $2,000) will be difficult to absorb. I note that the appellant’s son has expressed an intention to contribute to the impoundment cost and that may soften the financial burden on the appellant.

20However, the Regulation prohibits me from taking into account financial loss caused by the impoundment unless no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available. In this case, as mentioned, I conclude that reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle are available and I am therefore unable to consider the appellant’s financial loss in determining whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

SUMMARY

21Based on the evidence presented, the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship within the meaning of the Act and Regulation.

ORDER

22Pursuant to s. 50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.