Licence Appeal Tribunal
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:
Lakhir Singh Sanghi Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Theodore Crljenica, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Lakhir Singh Sanghi, Self Represented For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: March 1, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1A teleconference hearing was held on March 1, 2021 to consider an appeal filed by Lakhir Singh Sanghi (the “appellant”) under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) relating to the 45 day impoundment of his motor vehicle.
2The appellant’s motor vehicle was impounded on January 25, 2021 on the basis that at the time of impoundment the operator was driving with a suspended licence (the “suspended driver”). The appellant appealed on the basis of exceptional hardship.
3For the reasons set out below, the appeal is denied, and the impoundment is confirmed.
ISSUE ON THE APPEAL
4The issue to be determined on the appeal is whether the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle will result in exceptional hardship.
THE LAW
5Section 50.2(3) of the Act sets out the grounds on which the Tribunal may order the Registrar to release an impounded motor vehicle: This appeal only engages subsection (d):
(d) that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
ANALYSIS
6On the facts of this appeal, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 631/98, sections 10 (1) and (4), an appellant relying in the ground of exceptional hardship must demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available and that every reasonable option has been considered and inquired into that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat of loss to the appellant, including making arrangements to do without any motor vehicle during the impoundment period
7If the appellant satisfies this requirement, he must demonstrate that the loss of use of the impounded vehicle will result in a threat to his health or safety.1
8The appellant has not satisfied either requirement. On the first requirement, there are alternatives to the impounded vehicle. Since February 13, 2021, the appellant has been off work for medical reasons. From the date of impoundment until February 12, 2021, he used public transit to travel to and from work. As such, the impoundment has not had, nor will it have, an impact on his employment. Further, when required, the appellant’s daughter has driven him to medical appointments. The appellant did not identify any other uses of the vehicle that have been impacted by the impoundment.
9On the second requirement, the appellant has not established that the impoundment will result in a threat to his health or safety. Although he is off work for medical reasons there was no evidence to suggest that the impoundment will, in any way, affect his health or safety.
10At most, the impoundment is an inconvenience to the appellant, and this does not meet the test of exceptional hardship. As such, the appellant has not met the requirements of section 10 (1) and (4) of Ontario Regulation 631/98, summarized in paragraphs 6 and 7, above.
ORDER
11The appeal is denied, and the impoundment is confirmed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Theodore Crljenica, Member
Released: March 04, 2021
Footnotes
- This appeal does not engage the provisions of section 10(2) and (3) of Ontario Regulation 631/98 as it has not been alleged that the impoundment will result in a financial or economic loss, loss of employment or employment opportunity, or loss of education or training or an educational or training opportunity.