Tribunals Ontario

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Date: 2021-12-20

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:

Naomi Goldberg-Stinsman

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Naomi Goldberg-Stinsman

For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent

Heard by teleconference: November 26, 2021

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. background:

1A teleconference hearing was held on November 26, 2021 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the impoundment of her 2019 Kia (“vehicle”) on October 17, 2021 for 90 days, until January 15, 2022. The impoundment is for 90 days because this is the second impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.

2The appellant submits that the impoundment has resulted in exceptional hardship because the loss of her vehicle has resulted in the loss of her job because she cannot get to her work, cannot get her daughters to school, and one daughter is also on the verge of losing her job. This loss of income has caused financial hardship to the appellant including inability to pay her rent.

B. ISSUEs:

3The first issue to be determined is whether the exceptional hardship ground is available to the appellant in this case. If it is available, the second issue is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

C. RESULT:

4On the first issue I find that the exceptional hardship ground is not available to the appellant because she is an owner who has previously had a vehicle impounded under s. 55.1 of the HTA. As a result, I need not determine the second issue.

D. LAW AND ANALYSIS:

5The owner of a vehicle which has been impounded pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. H.8 (“HTA”) may, pursuant to s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment and request an order that the Registrar release the vehicle.

6An owner may appeal only on the grounds set out in s. 50.2 (3), (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the HTA. Here the appellant appeals on ground (d), that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. However, under s. 50.2(4) of the HTA, the right to appeal on the ground of exceptional hardship is not available to an owner of an impounded vehicle who has previously had a vehicle impounded under s. 55.1 of the HTA.

7The Register’s evidence before me establishes that the appellant had a vehicle owned by her impounded on November 27, 2020 for 45 days under s. 55.1 of the HTA. The driver of the appellant’s vehicle at the time of the 2020 impoundment is the same driver who was driving the appellant’s vehicle when it was impounded on October 17, 2021 and his licence remains under indefinite suspension until he completes a remedial program.

8The appellant admits that the 2020 impoundment of her vehicle occurred but testified that her vehicle was improperly impounded. On the evidence before me there is no indication that there was any successful challenge undertaken by the appellant to the 2020 impoundment and it remains in the Registrar’s records filed.

9The appellant also testified that the driver of her vehicle was charged with an incorrect offence at the time her vehicle was impounded in October 17, 2021. The evidence before me does not support this submission. Even if it did, whether or not charges were laid against the driver of the appellant’s vehicle at the time of impoundment is not relevant in this particular appeal given that the appellant’s sole ground of appeal is exceptional hardship.

10On the first issue, I therefore find that the exceptional hardship ground is not available to the appellant because she is an owner of a vehicle who has previously had a vehicle impounded under s. 55.1 of the HTA.

11As a result, I need not determine the second issue.

ORDER:

12Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.