File Number: 13278/MVIA
Appeal under subsection 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an Impoundment pursuant to Section 55.1(3) of the Act
Between:
Brandon Mitchell
Appellant
And
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Jacqueline Castel
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Brandon Mitchell, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Sonia DeSantis, Agent
Place and Date of Hearing: By Teleconference
May 14, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW:
1A teleconference hearing was held on May 14, 2021 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle. The vehicle was impounded on April 13, 2021 because the licence of the driver of the vehicle was under suspension.
2The appellant is requesting that the Tribunal make a finding that the impoundment should be set aside and order the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to release the vehicle on the ground that he will suffer exceptional hardship.
ISSUE:
3The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
CONCLUSION:
4On the evidence before me at the hearing, I find that the impoundment did not result in exceptional hardship within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(d) of the HTA.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
5The owner of a vehicle that has been impounded pursuant to s. 55.1(1) of the HTA, may appeal the impoundment under s. 50.2 and request an order that the Registrar release the vehicle.
6There are limited grounds on which an owner may appeal an impoundment as set out in section 50.2(3) of the HTA. The appellant in this case appealed on the ground of exceptional hardship.
Exceptional Hardship
7Section 10 of O. Reg.631/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that I must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment. In order to establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement set out in 10(1) of the Regulation is that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. If I find that there is an alternative to the impounded vehicle, then I need not consider any other requirements. I find that the appellant has not met this first requirement.
8The appellant explained that the driver, at the time of the impoundment, was his former girlfriend and he was not aware that her licence was under suspension or that she had been drinking, when he allowed her to use his vehicle to take care of a family matter. He also acknowledged that his vehicle has been impounded on two prior occasions for 7 days each time.
9The appellant testified that he was wrongfully dismissed from his employment shortly before the onset of the pandemic in 2020. He indicated that his union is appealing his employment termination and that he is currently receiving employment insurance. He stated that he is behind on bills and currently has debts of approximately $20,000.
10The appellant testified that he lives in a trailer which he parks on his parents’ farm. He stated that his stepfather owns a truck, which he uses for work, and his mother owns a SUV. He indicated that his mother has assisted him with grocery shopping and other errands during the period of impoundment. He also acknowledged that his mother has allowed him to borrow her vehicle to attend three job interviews.
11The appellant’s mother, Karen Harvey, gave evidence that she works as a school bus driver, but since schools are closed during the lockdown, she has been assisting elderly neighbours with groceries and errands. She indicated that she is available to help her son with transportation from time to time for the duration of the impoundment, which will end on May 28, 2021.
12The appellant acknowledged that he has not encountered any medical emergencies during the period of impoundment.
13There is no doubt that the appellant has been inconvenienced by the impoundment and that the impoundment has aggravated financial problems which predated it. However, the evidence does not support exceptional hardship because he has alternatives to the vehicle.
14Since the appellant did not satisfy the test that there was no alternative to the impounded vehicle, I do not need to consider the other provisions of s. 10 of the regulation.
ORDER:
15Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I deny the appeal and confirm the impoundment order.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
___________________________
Jacqueline Castel, Member
Released: May 17, 2021