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 of that Act
Between:
Madonna Bujold
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION and ORDER
Adjudicator: Katherine Livingstone, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Madonna Bujold, self-represented
For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, agent
Heard by teleconference: March 22, 2021
BACKGROUND
1This is a motion to extend the time to appeal a motor vehicle impoundment.
2On January 9 2021, the appellant’s vehicle was detained and impounded for 45 days pursuant to section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 8 (“the Act”), after being driven by her son whose licence was under a Criminal Code suspension. On February 25, 2021, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. She appealed on the basis of exceptional hardship resulting from the impoundment. On March 11, 2021, she filed a motion to extend the time to appeal.
3In brief, the appellant submitted she was not aware of her ability to appeal until after February 23, 2021 when she started looking into how to get her vehicle back.
4The respondent submitted that as the motion to extend the time of filing an appeal was filed after the period of impoundment ended, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and therefore the motion to extend should not be granted. In the alternative, he argued that a weighing of all the factors spoke against granting the motion.
5I heard evidence from the appellant and submissions from both parties on the motion. Following this, I denied the motion with reasons to follow. My reasons are below.
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
6The issues to be decided are:
a. Has the appellant established reasonable grounds to support an extension of time to appeal the impoundment?
b. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear an appeal after the period of impoundment has ended?
CONCLUSION
7I find the appellant failed to establish reasonable grounds for an extension of the time to file her appeal. The appellant’s motion is denied and the appeal is dismissed.
8As the appeal has been dismissed it is not necessary to address the respondent’s argument on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
9Pursuant to s. 9 of Ontario Regulation 631/98 issued under the Act, an appeal of a long-term impoundment is required to be filed within 15 days after the day the vehicle was detained.
10The Tribunal has jurisdiction to extend the time for filing of an appeal pursuant to s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Schedule G, which reads:
Despite any limitation of time fixed by or under any Act for the giving of any notice requiring a hearing by the Tribunal under section11 or any other Act, if the Tribunal is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for applying for the extension and for granting relief, it may,
a) extend the time for giving the notice either before or after the expiration of the limitation of time so limited; and
b) give the directions that it considers proper as a result of extending the time.
11Determining whether there are reasonable grounds for an extension is not an exact formula. Pursuant to Manuel v. Registrar, Motor Vehicles Dealers Act 2002, 2012 ONSC 1492 (Div. Ct.), the Tribunal must consider the following factors in making a determination as to whether there are reasonable grounds to grant an extension of time:
a. The existence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period;
b. The length of the delay;
c. Prejudice to the other party; and
d. The merits of the appeal.
12The analysis requires a balancing of these factors applied to the facts. No one factor takes precedence over the others. The overriding consideration is whether the “justice of the case” requires that an extension be granted.
13The onus is on the appellant to establish that there are reasonable grounds for granting the extension.
Bona Fide Intention to Appeal within the Appeal Period
14The appellant testified her vehicle was impounded on January 9, 2021 after she gave her son her vehicle so he could attend to an “emergency”. She said she did not believe her son’s licence was suspended.
15The appellant’s evidence as to what the “emergency” and who exactly she thought would be driving the car was inconsistent. At some point in her evidence she said her son was going to drive the vehicle and at another point she said she thought his friend would be driving and she hadn’t asked to see the friend’s licence as she was a “trusting” person.
16She seemed unclear as to what the “emergency” was other than she thought it had something to do with her son’s girlfriend. She also said her son was stopped by police while he was in the car in a mall parking lot waiting for his friend who was shopping.
17After the car was impounded the appellant said she was not told she had an opportunity to appeal the impoundment or that there was a time limit in which to appeal.
18She did acknowledge receiving a copy of the two sided impoundment document, which she filed with her Notice of Appeal. She candidly said she did not read the document in its entirety to determine if there was any information on steps to be taken to appeal the impoundment.
19In his submissions the respondent’s agent pointed out the impoundment documents contain information on how the owner of the impounded vehicle can take steps to appeal the impoundment.
20The appellant said it was only after February 23, 2021 that she began looking into the possibility of appealing the impoundment. This was after she spoke to someone at the towing company who said she had to go the police station to get the papers for the vehicle’s release. She believed it was the police who told her about the appeal process, after which she contacted the Tribunal.
21On the issue of her intention to appeal I find the appellant’s evidence lacking. She did not read the impoundment document which would have enlightened her as to the appeal process and she took no other active steps to appeal during the impoundment period. I find the appellant has not demonstrated she had a bona fide intention to appeal with the appeal period.
The length of the delay
22The appellant’s notice of appeal was received 30 days after the 15 day period specified in s. 9 of the Regulation. It was another 14 days before her motion to extend time for filing was received by the Tribunal. This is a significant delay.
Prejudice to the other party
23If an extension of the time to file was granted, it would result in prejudice to the respondent. This is because if the appellant was successful on the appeal, the respondent would be responsible for the cost of the impoundment. If the appeal had been heard earlier, the financial burden on the respondent would in all likelihood be lessened. This factor weighs against granting an extension of time.
The merits of the appeal
24I find the merits of the appeal to be weak. The appellant appeals on the basis of exceptional hardship. Specifically, she alleges the impoundment has negatively impacted her ability to attend medical appointments and has affected her son’s ability to continue his employment as she drove him to work.
25The appellant acknowledged that during the impoundment she had been able to rely on friends for medical appointments during the impoundment, however she preferred to be “independent”.
26I found the appellant’s evidence about both her medical appointments and her son’s employment issues to be inconsistent and vague. She said she had missed 2-3 appointments however later retracted this. She spoke about having surgery the day after the motion but then at another point simply said it was a doctor’s appointment. Her explanation as to her son’s employment situation was similarly contradictory.
27In the circumstances, I find the appellant has not demonstrated she had a bona fide intention to appeal within the legislated time period, that her delay in filing was both significant and prejudicial and that there is little merit to her appeal. I conclude she has failed to establish reasonable grounds for an extension of time to file her appeal—the justice of case requires that extension be denied.
ORDER
28The appellant’s motion to extend the time to file her appeal is denied and the appeal is dismissed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Katherine Livingstone, Member
Released: April 21, 2021