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:
Thayane Ribeiro
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Colin Osterberg, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Thayane Ribeiro, Self Represented
For the Respondent: Sonia De Santis, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: March 18, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1A teleconference hearing was held on March 18, 2021, to consider an appeal filed by Thayane Rebeiro (the “appellant”) under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) relating to the impoundment of her motor vehicle.
2The appellant’s motor vehicle was impounded on February 16, 2021. At the time of the impoundment, the operator was driving with a suspended licence. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.
3The appellant appealed on the basis that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
4For the reasons set out below, the appeal is dismissed, and the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.
ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED
5The issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship in accordance with section 50.2(3)(c) of the Act.
6Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 631/98 (the “Regulation”), ss. 10 (1) and (4), the appellant must prove that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available to her by demonstrating that every reasonable option has been considered and inquired into that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss, including making arrangements to do without any motor vehicle during the impoundment period.
7If the appellant satisfies the above requirement then, pursuant to ss. 10(2) and (3) of the Regulation, she must demonstrate that the loss of use of the impounded vehicle will result in a financial or economic loss, or loss of employment, employment opportunity, education, training, education opportunity, or training opportunity, to any person. The appellant must show that the loss will be immediate, significant, and lasting. She must also show that the impact of the loss will be on a person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle other than the person whose driving while under suspension resulted in the impoundment.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
8The Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) submitted into evidence the Notice to Registrar, Driving Record of Randy Costello, Vehicle Registration for the impounded vehicle, and Notice of Impoundment and Release, under the seal of the Ministry of Transportation. Pursuant to ss. 49 and 210(7) of the Act, those documents were admitted into evidence and accepted, absent evidence to the contrary, for the truth of the facts contained therein. The appellant stated that she had no evidence to contradict the facts described in the documents filed, and agreed their contents were true.
9The Ministry of Transportation’s records disclose that the appellant is the registered owner of a 2020 KIA motor vehicle bearing licence plate number CKYV785 which is the motor vehicle that was impounded on February 16, 2021. At the time of impoundment, her friend, Randy Costello, was driving the vehicle while his driver’s licence was under suspension. The Ministry of Transportation’s records indicate that his licence was suspended on April 8, 2017, and the suspension continued at least until the date of impoundment.
10According to the appellant, before the vehicle was impounded, she had driven to a restaurant with Randy Costello. She was not feeling well enough to drive home and asked Mr. Costello to drive. The vehicle was stopped by police and impounded for 45 days. The appellant says that she made a mistake and that she is hopeful that the Tribunal will be flexible and allow her to get her car back earlier than the 45-day term of impoundment.
Exceptional Hardship
11The appellant argues that she will suffer exceptional hardship due to the continued impoundment of her motor vehicle. Her evidence supports the conclusion that she will suffer some hardship as the result of the impoundment. The evidence does not support a finding that she will suffer exceptional hardship as defined in the Regulation.
12The appellant testified that she has two sources of income. She works full-time as a customer service representative in Ajax and she works part-time as a babysitter.
13The appellant did not allege that she will suffer any loss relating to the customer service job. She testified that she takes the bus to her customer service job and she is not losing income from that source. She did not present evidence of any other concerns she has with respect to her employment at the customer service job.
14With respect to babysitting, the appellant said that she babysits for one family, four or five times a week, including weekends, for which she earns $100 a day. She is required to pick up the children and take them to her home but has been unable to continue doing that since her car has been impounded. The appellant will start babysitting again once her vehicle is no longer impounded.
15The appellant lives alone and does not have any family or friends who are able to assist her with transportation so that she could continue babysitting. She has investigated taking a taxi, uber, or renting a vehicle and has determined that those options are too expensive.
16The appellant buys her groceries and other home supplies from a Giant Tiger near her customer service job and takes them home with her on the bus. She does not have any health or safety concerns related to the impoundment.
17The appellant testified that she will be behind financially if her vehicle remains impounded. She has requested a deferral of her student loan payments and she is considering getting another part-time job when she gets her car back in order to make up for the money she is losing while her car is impounded. She has also investigated lower cost phone plans in order to save money. She is not sure how quickly she will be able to catch up financially. The appellant described no other impacts that the impoundment is having on her.
18I am satisfied that the appellant has demonstrated that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle available to her. She is unable to continue babysitting using the bus because she is unable to pick up the children at a time satisfactory to her employer. Her employer refused to drop the children off at the appellant’s home. The appellant offered to continue to babysit on a slightly different schedule, but the employer refused. The appellant has no family or friends who can assist her with transportation. The appellant has investigated taking a taxi or uber, or renting a vehicle, but she is unable to afford those options.
19However, the appellant has not shown that the losses she will suffer due to the continued impoundment of her motor vehicle will be significant and lasting within the meaning of s. 10(3)(b) of the Regulation. Although the appellant is losing income as the result of not being able to continue babysitting, she did not present any evidence that the loss of income is having a significant impact on her. She is looking for a lower-priced phone plan and she is trying to defer repayment of her student loan. Those efforts do not constitute losses that are significant for the purpose of the Regulation.
20There was no evidence presented that the appellant’s losses would be lasting. She has been looking for ways to mitigate her losses by seeking a deferral of her student loan payments and looking for a lower-priced phone plan, and she is considering getting another part-time job. The appellant has been able to continue working at her customer service job and believes that she will return to her babysitting job once she gets her car back.
21While the appellant has sustained losses, they do not amount to exceptional hardship for the purposes of the Regulation.
ORDER
22For the reasons set out above the appeal is dismissed and the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Colin Osterberg,
Member
Released: March 24, 2021