Appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (“the Act”), from an impoundment of a motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Act for driving while suspended;
Between:
Joyce Zita
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Matthew M. Létourneau, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Joyce Zita, self-represented
For the Respondent: Sonia de Santis, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: April 1, 2021
OVERVIEW
1Ms. Joyce Zita (the “appellant”) appeals to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) regarding a decision by the Registrar to impound her vehicle pursuant s. 55.1 of the Act. The appellant seeks the release of her vehicle pursuant to sections 55.1 and 50.2 of the Act and its regulations on the basis that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
2The appellant is the owner of a 2014 BMW 3DX which was impounded on February 28, 2021 for 45 days. Police made a highway traffic stop and discovered it being driven by an acquaintance of the appellant, whose driver’s licence was under suspension for a Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 (“Criminal Code”) related offence.
3The appellant appealed on the basis that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
RESULT
4The impoundment is confirmed. The impoundment did not result in exceptional hardship within the meaning of the Act and Ontario Regulation 631/98 (“Regulation”).
THE LAW
5Under the Act, a police officer “shall” impound a motor vehicle for 45 days if the officer is satisfied that it was being driven by a person whose licence is under suspension, including suspensions resulting from Criminal Code convictions.
6The owner of an impounded vehicle may appeal the impoundment to this Tribunal. After holding a hearing, the Tribunal may either confirm the impoundment or order the Registrar to release the vehicle.
7The Act allows only a few limited grounds on which an owner may appeal, and the onus is on the appellant to establish one or more of those grounds.
8The appellant argued that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship pursuant to s.50.2(3) of the Act. In this case, s. 10 of the Regulation requires the Tribunal to consider whether an alternative to the impounded vehicle is available and, if no alternative is available, the Tribunal is required to consider whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle.
9The Regulation also prohibits the Tribunal from considering financial loss in determining whether an impoundment will result in exceptional hardship. That is, unless the owner demonstrates that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available.
10In order to show that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available, the Regulation states that the owner must demonstrate that every other reasonable option has been considered, including using another vehicle or making arrangements to do without the vehicle during the impound period.
APPELLANT’S CLAIM OF EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP
11The appellant lives in Brantford, Ontario and is employed at a construction company. She is a single mother of 3 children. Normally, she drives her daughters to school and work. She drives herself to work and depends on her vehicle for errands, groceries, appointments and otherwise.
12The appellant submitted in her appeal documents that she does not use public transit or depend on rides as favours. She says she worked overtime to pay for her vehicle, is a responsible driver of 16 years and has no infractions.
13She informed the Tribunal that it was her choice to lend her car to the acquaintance, who is a young person that she has been assisting through a tough time. She acknowledged that she lent the vehicle without verifying whether that person held a valid licence and expressed remorse in doing so.
14The appellant ordinarily transports her 6 and 12-year-old daughters to and from school. She takes her 18-year-old daughter to work. Occasionally, she transports them to medical appointments, but stated that there were not any medical emergencies during the impound period.
15While the appellant says she does not take public transit, she generally found rides from friends, family and co-workers. She expressed that this makes for a difficult situation as she is typically autonomous and does not ask for rides. She also said her sister-in-law was moving soon and that she was a support for her in finding rides.
16The appellant said she has paid for cab rides to get around and has had to ask others for car-pooling.
17A key concern for the appellant were the additional costs that not having a vehicle would have on her as a single mother.
18The appellant submitted that the impoundment had resulted in exceptional hardship.
19The Registrar was sympathetic to the appellant’s case but submitted that the vehicle had been properly impounded and submitted that it should be upheld.
EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP
20I conclude that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship within the meaning of the Act and Regulation.
21I find that the appellant has alternative options for transportation that, while perhaps not ideal, are reasonable. She stated that she was finding rides and could pay for cab rides when needed. It is clear, therefore, that during the impound period the appellant both considered and utilized reasonable alternatives to her impounded vehicle. In doing so she has been able to manage somewhat, even if there has been added cost to this.
22I did not hear any evidence suggesting the impoundment had resulted in danger to the health or security of herself or her daughters, or anyone else for that matter. While there were medical appointments that were scheduled, I do not find that the impoundment creates any health or security risks.
23The appellant requested that I consider the inconvenience and the elevated costs of the impoundment. Unfortunately, these are criteria that I am expressly prohibited from considering in this case. This is because the Tribunal is absolutely prohibited by the Act and Regulation from considering any inconvenience. It is also prohibited from considering the costs of the impoundment unless the appellant has established that there are no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, something the appellant has failed to do in this proceeding considering my finding that she has managed during the impound period by accepting rides from others and using taxis.
24As a result, I cannot consider the appellant’s financial loss in determining whether the impoundment has resulted in exceptional hardship. The appellant has not established exceptional hardship within the meaning of the Act and Regulation.
DECISION AND ORDER
25For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s motor vehicle.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_________________________
Matthew M. Létourneau,
Member
Released: April 13, 2021