Sarah Bevins v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2021 CanLII 48156

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2021-05-27 File Number: 13286/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:

Sarah Bevins Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Jacqueline Castel

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Sarah Bevins, Self-represented For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent

Place and Date of Hearing: By Teleconference May 26, 2021

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW:

1A teleconference hearing was held on May 26, 2021 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45-day impoundment of her vehicle. The vehicle was impounded on April 21, 2021 because the driver of the vehicle had a condition on his licence that he may only drive vehicles with an ignition interlock device and the appellant’s vehicle did not have such a device.

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 has not resulted 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 testified that she is the single mother of two boys and resides in a small community where there is no public transportation. She stated that she has had to rely on friends for transportation to get groceries and do other errands. She testified that her mother has been looking after her sons while she is at work. She also indicated that the father of her sons has assisted with childcare, from time to time, during the period of impoundment.

9The appellant stated that she has had to rely on friends to get to and from work, and when friends were available she has had to take a taxi. She stated that taxis are very expensive, as her work is approximately 25 minutes from her residence. The appellant also indicated that she has had to miss the odd day of work because friends were not available to provide transportation and she did not want to take a taxi.

10The evidence outlined above discloses that the appellant has been able to attend work except for occasional absences. While clearly indicating a measure of inconvenience, the evidence does not show exceptional hardship. She has had access to assistance for groceries, errands and other activities. There is no evidence of dire medical circumstances or missed medical appointments.

11Since 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:

12Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I deny the appeal and confirm the impoundment order.