An Appeal under subsection 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.8. from the impoundment of a motor vehicle pursuant to Section 55.1 of the Act
Between:
Kylae Nisbet
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Harriet Lewis
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Kylae Nisbet, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Steven Grootenboer, Agent
Heard by teleconference: June 17, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
1Kylae Nisbet (“the Appellant”), appeals the impoundment on May 18, 20210, of her 2019 Nissan motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act (“the Act”). At the time of the impoundment, the Appellant’s vehicle was being driven by her brother whose driving licence was under suspension.
2The Appellant appeals on the grounds that the impoundment of her vehicle has resulted in exceptional hardship on the basis that she requires her vehicle for her work as a registered practical nurse and to manage her day to day life living in a small rural community and as a single mother to her teenaged son.
ISSUES:
3The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment resulted in exceptional hardship to the Appellant.
CONCLUSION:
4On the evidence before me at the hearing, I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship as defined in s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act and Ontario Regulation 631/98, (“the Regulation”).
LAW:
5The owner of a vehicle that has been impounded may appeal on the grounds of exceptional hardship in certain circumstances. The determination of whether those circumstances exist in each case is proscribed by s. 10 of the Regulation.
6The Regulation requires the Tribunal to consider “whether no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle is available”, (ss.10(1)). The onus is on the appellant to show that no alternative is available, (ss. 10(3)). Ss.10(4) provides that in order to show that no alternative to the impounded motor vehicle is available, “the owner must demonstrate that every reasonable option has been considered and inquired into that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss to the person, including using another vehicle and making arrangements to do without any motor vehicle during the impound period.“
7Subsection 10(2) of the Regulation provides that the Tribunal “shall not, subject to subsection (3), consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to any person, financial or economic loss to any person, loss of employment or employment opportunity, or loss of education or training” unless no alternative to the vehicle is available
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:
8The Appellant gave her testimony in a straightforward and sincere manner. She said that her vehicle was stopped and impounded when she and her brother were returning from a nearby city, where she had driven to pick him up. She knew her brother did not have a valid driving licence. However, she asked him to take over the wheel from her when she experienced anxiety while driving on an unfamiliar busy highway. Later that day she was able to rent a car and carry out her patient visits. She has renewed the rental in two-week increments since then. The cost of the car rental, coupled with the cost of retrieving her vehicle from the impound, will place a serious financial burden on her.
9The Act and Regulation are public protection legislation, designed to ensure that unlicensed drivers are not operating on Ontario’s roads. In this case, because the Appellant has been able to arrange for alternate transportation in the form of a rental vehicle, and despite the genuine financial pressure placed on her by the consequences of the impoundment, she has not met the onus hereby the Act and Regulation to demonstrate exceptional hardship.
ORDER:
10I confirm the order of impoundment.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Harriet Lewis, Member
Released: June 22, 2021