Charlotte Sarazin v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2021 CanLII 30765

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2021-04-14

An appeal under Section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an Impoundment of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to Section 55.1(3) of the Act.

Between:

Charlotte Sarazin Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Charlotte Sarazin

For the Respondent:

Stella Velocci, Agent

Heard by Teleconference:

March 3, 2021

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW

1A teleconference hearing was held on March 3, 2021 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45-day impoundment of her 2017 Ford Fusion SE (the “vehicle”). The vehicle was impounded on January 29, 2021.

2Subsection 55.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act” or the “HTA”) allows for the impoundment of a vehicle for 45 days where a police officer is satisfied that the driver’s licence of the person, who is driving a vehicle, is under suspension. The vehicle was impounded pursuant to this subsection of the Act.

3The appellant is appealing the impoundment on the grounds that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

ISSUES

4The issue to be determined is:

i. Whether the impound will result in exceptional hardship to the appellant after applying the specific test for exceptional hardship that is set out in Ontario Regulation 631/98 (the “Regulation”) under the HTA.

CONCLUSION

5On the evidence before me at the hearing, I find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the she meets the specific test to qualify for exceptional hardship as set out in the Regulation.

ANALYSIS

6The appellant testified that she was not driving the vehicle at the time. She states that her boyfriend took the vehicle without her knowledge. He drove the vehicle and subsequently came to the attention of the police for speeding. After being pulled over, police discovered that his driver’s licence was under suspension for a criminal code conviction.

7The respondent provided evidence at the hearing, including a driver’s abstract of the appellant’s boyfriend, to support her position that the impoundment was lawful. She requests that the decision to impound be confirmed.

8The appellant bases her submissions that she will suffer exceptional hardship on one main point. It is her position that she will be unable to attend monthly doctor’s appointments and get the necessary prescription renewals. She submits that this has led to the possibility that, without her medication, she will not be clear-headed at work. She submits, and I accept, that as a cabinet maker it is important that she remain clear-headed or risk injury to herself or a colleague. I do not accept that her submissions support a finding of exceptional hardship for the following reasons.

9The appellant testified that she has monthly doctor’s appointments in Ottawa which she must attend. Some of these appointments are scheduled to occur during the impoundment period. I accepted her testimony that her current job with a custom cabinet company is very demanding and requires her to be thinking clearly. To achieve this, she must comply with the specific medication prescribed by her doctor.

10However, during the hearing it was revealed that the appellant is still able to receive her medication since her doctor is able to fax a copy of the prescription to a pharmacy where the appellant can easily pick it up.

11The appellant argues that she must still attend her doctor in-person to provide urine samples. I find that the appellant failed to provide any evidence to support this statement.

12The appellant has also been able to maintain employment at this time. She stated that she is able to walk to and from work which takes her about 20-25 minutes. The respondent also pointed out that the appellant has been able to obtain her groceries and other necessities. The stores appear to be in walking distance of the appellant’s home.

13I find that while it may be inconvenient for the appellant to walk to work and to the grocery store, the reasons provided at the hearing do not meet the threshold of exceptional hardship as she appears to be managing well without her vehicle. In addition to this, I do not view there to be any significant threat to health and safety for the appellant or any dependents.

ORDER

14For the reasons set out above, pursuant to the Tribunal’s authority under s.50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment order.