Licence Appeal Tribunal
File Number: 13112/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:
Suganthy Sivakumar
Appellant
And
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Jacqueline Castel
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Suganthy Sivakumar, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent
Interpreter: Shiana Kulashinvhum
Heard by Teleconference: February 22, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW:
1A teleconference hearing was held on February 22, 2021 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45-day impoundment of her 2002 Toyota, LXS (the “vehicle”). The vehicle was impounded on January 7, 2021, pursuant to s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act (the “HTA”) because it was being driven by her son, who has a condition on his licence that he can only drive vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock device, and the appellant’s vehicle was not so equipped. 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.
2The appellant is appealing the impoundment on the ground of exceptional hardship.
ISSUE:
3The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
CONCLUSION:
4On 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:
5The 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.
6There 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
7Section 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.
8The appellant testified that she does not work and collects disability benefits. She stated that she resides with her husband and son. She indicated that her husband is retired, collects a pension, and provides transportation for their son, whose licence is now under suspension, to and from work. The appellant indicated that her husband owns a second vehicle. The appellant also testified that during the period of impoundment, her husband and daughter have been assisting her with transportation to and from medical appointments and the grocery store. She indicated that they have had to rearrange their schedules to assist her and it has been very inconvenient. However, the appellant confirmed that she has not had to miss any medical appointments during the period of impoundment.
9There is no doubt that the appellant, as well as her family members, have been inconvenienced because of the impoundment. However, the evidence does not support exceptional hardship because she has alternatives to the vehicle.
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 [H](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c