Paul Rioux v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2021 CanLII 11863

DECISION AND ORDER

Date: 2021-02-08

File Number: 13113/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:

Paul Rioux

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

ADJUDICATOR: Jacqueline Castel

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Paul Rioux, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Sonia De Santis, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: February 8, 2021

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW:

1A teleconference hearing was held on February 8, 2021 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45-day impoundment of his motorized RV (the “vehicle”) which he was driving at the time of the impoundment. The vehicle was impounded because the appellant’s driver’s licence was under a Criminal Code suspension at the time of the impoundment.

2The appellant is an Elder in the Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. The vehicle which was impounded is the appellant’s home, and he is currently homeless. The appellant is also a cancer survivor with other health issues.

3The appellant is appealing the impoundment on the ground of exceptional hardship.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE:

4At the case conference, an issue was raised about the ownership of the vehicle, which was meant to be decided at the hearing. However, since the case conference, the appellant provided the respondent and the Tribunal with proof of purchase of the RV in 2020 and a vehicle permit, issued by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation on January 29, 2021, which names the appellant as owner. As such, Ms. De Santis, agent for the appellant, indicated that the respondent is not contesting that the appellant owns the vehicle.

ISSUE:

5Accordingly, the sole issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

CONCLUSION:

6On the evidence before me at the hearing, I find that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

7The 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.

8There 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

9In 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 no alternative to the vehicle, under section 10(1)(a), I can consider whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person normally transported by the vehicle.

10The appellant testified that he is 65 years of age and that the vehicle, an RV, has been his home for over a year. He stated that the RV is located on Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory. He also stated that he had surgery for cancer 10 months ago and suffers from respiratory problems.

11The appellant testified that he is number 85 on a waiting list for alternative shelter. He indicated that, so far, during the impoundment, he has been able to stay with various friends or community members for a night or two, but he has run out of people to impose on. He indicated that there have been times, during the period of impoundment, where he has had nowhere to go, and he has had to find shelter at a Tim Horton’s. He indicated that even this was problematic, as there is no seating at coffee shops due to stay-at-home-order associated with the pandemic. The appellant stated that community members are reluctant to let him stay for more than one or two nights because of the pandemic. He indicated that he does not have alternative options for housing for the duration of the impoundment. He also indicated that he obtains his food from a food bank in the community.

12This is an unusual case where the vehicle is being used as a residence rather than as a means of transportation. While the appellant has been resourceful in reaching out to friends and community members for shelter, I found his testimony that people are reluctant to give him shelter during a pandemic, and that he does not have alternative options for housing for the remainder of the impoundment, to be credible. Further, given that it is the middle of winter, there is a global pandemic, and the appellant is 65 years of age with a respiratory condition, I am satisfied that the impoundment, which has deprived him of his home, is a threat to his health and safety for the purpose of section 10(1)(a) of the Regulation. As such, in the circumstances of this case, I find that exceptional hardship has been established.

13According to the Extended Driver Record Search for Criminal Code Convictions, submitted by the respondent, the appellant’s driver’s licence is suspended until February 14, 2021. As such, the appellant is cautioned that he must either arrange for his vehicle to be towed or for someone with a valid driver’s licence to drive it from the impound facility to the location where he keeps it parked.

ORDER:

14Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I grant the appeal and order that the respondent release the appellant’s vehicle.