Margaret Kladnik v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2020 CanLII 98688

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2020-12-11

File Number: 12976/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:

Margaret Kladnik

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Jacqueline Castel, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Margaret Kladnik, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent

Place and Date of Hearing: By Teleconference, December 7, 2020

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW:

1A teleconference hearing was held on December 7, 2020 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45-day impoundment of her 2007 Chevrolet, Impala (the “vehicle”). The vehicle was Impounded on October 10, 2020 because it was being driven by a person whose licence was under suspension. The appellant is requesting that the Tribunal make a finding that the impoundment should be set aside and order the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to release the vehicle.

ISSUE:

2The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

CONCLUSION:

3On 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 HTA.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

4The owner of a vehicle that has been impounded. pursuant to s. 55.1(1) of the HTA, may appeal the impoundment under s. 50.2 and request an order that the Registrar release the vehicle.

5There 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 of exceptional hardship.

Exceptional Hardship

6Section 10 of O. Reg.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. I find that the appellant has not met this first requirement.

7The appellant testified that she does not work and is on a fixed income, the Ontario Disability Support Program. She stated that she cannot afford the impoundment fees. She also testified that she has been able to make alternative arrangements respecting transportation during the period of impoundment. She specified that a friend has assisted her with transportation for grocery and Christmas shopping.

8The appellant testified that her son suffers from ADHD and is globally delayed. She indicated that he takes a school bus to and from school, and when he was suspended from school bus transportation due to behavioural issues, her boyfriend transported him to and from school on his electric bike. She stated that her son did not miss school or any medical appointments during the period of impoundment.

9There is no doubt that the appellant has been inconvenienced because of the impoundment. However, the evidence does not support exceptional hardship because she has alternative modes of transportation available.

10Since the appellant did not satisfy the test that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, I do not need to consider the other provisions of s. 10 of the regulation.

ORDER:

11Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I deny the appeal and confirm the impoundment order.