Patrick Isaacs v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 109483

Patrick Isaacs v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Date: 2022-11-15

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:

Patrick Isaacs Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATORS: Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair Rupinder Hans, Member

APPEARANCES: For the Appellant: Patrick Isaacs, self-represented – Did not attend For the Respondent: Leila Pereira

Heard by teleconference: November 15, 2022

1Patrick Isaacs (the “appellant”) appeals the 45-day impoundment of his 2007 Dodge Caravan (the “vehicle”) under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The vehicle was impounded on October 16, 2022. At the time of the impoundment, Adam Cook (“the driver”) was driving the vehicle while his licence was under suspension.

2The appellant appeals on the grounds of due diligence and that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship.

ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED

3The issues to be determined are whether the appellant exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s license of the driver of the vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension pursuant to s. 50.2(3)(c) of the Act, and whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship as defined in the s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act and s. 10 of Regulation 631/98 (the “Regulation”).

RESULT

4For the reasons set out below, we confirm the impoundment of the vehicle.

ANALYSIS

5The appellant failed to appear at today’s hearing, which was conducted by electronically by telephone. We were advised by the Case Management Officer (“CMO”) handling this matter that she attempted to contact the appellant via email and telephone after the commencement of the hearing in order to confirm his attendance. The CMO was unable to reach the appellant.

6Section 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) permits this Tribunal to proceed with the electronic hearing, e.g. by telephone, where a party fails to attend. We must then be satisfied that a proper Notice of Hearing was issued to the appellant. Sections 6(1), 6(2) and 6(5) of the SPPA specify the information required to be in a proper Notice of Hearing. This includes the date, time, purpose and the details about the manner in which the hearing will be held. Having reviewed the Notice of Hearing for this telephone hearing, we find that it contains the required information. We are satisfied that this telephone hearing was convened properly, that the appellant was sent the Notice of Hearing by email to his address on file on November 3, 2022, and that he was sent a reminder by email on November 9, 2022.

7After waiting 30 minutes to give the appellant the opportunity to appear at the hearing, we ordered that the hearing proceed in his absence. The evidence submitted by the Registrar confirms that on October 16, 2022, the appellant’s vehicle was being driven by a driver whose licence was suspended for offences delineated in s. 55.1 of the Act when it was detained and impounded by a police officer. We find that this impoundment was in accordance with s. 55.1 of the Act.

8In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant alleges that he exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver’s licence of the driver of the motor vehicle was not under suspension, and that impoundment will cause exceptional hardship. He has the onus of proving either due diligence and/or exceptional hardship on a balance of probabilities. No evidence was presented at the hearing in support of the appellant’s position. His appeal must be dismissed.

ORDER

9For the reasons set out above, and pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the Act, the Tribunal confirms the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.