Diann Thomson v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 27508

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2022-04-04 File Number: 13902/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:

Diann Thomson Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Jacqueline Castel

Appearances:

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

Place and Date of Hearing: By Teleconference April 4, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW:

1A teleconference hearing was held on April 4, 2022 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45-day impoundment of her 2018 Chevrolet, Cruze (the “vehicle”). The vehicle was impounded because the driver’s licence was under a Criminal Code suspension at the time of the impoundment.

2The driver of the vehicle at the time of the impoundment is the father of the appellant’s grandson. The appellant asked him to drive, as she had been drinking. She did not realize his licence was under suspension.

3The appellant is requesting that the Tribunal make a finding that the impoundment be set aside and order the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to release the vehicle on the grounds that she will suffer exceptional hardship.

ISSUE:

4The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship?

CONCLUSION:

5On the evidence before me at the hearing, I find that the impoundment will not result in exceptional hardship within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act (the “HTA”).

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

6The 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.

7There 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

8Section 10 of Ontario Regulation 631/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that I must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from the 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 there is an alternative to the impounded vehicle, I need not consider any other requirements.

9The appellant testified that she is the full-time caregiver of her grandson, as the child’s mother is struggling with a drug addiction. She stated that she needs the vehicle to transport her grandson to and from school and to get to and from her place of employment. She testified that she resides in a small town where the only taxi service is unreliable. She also indicated that the bus service routes she would need to take were recently cancelled due to staffing shortages. Further, the appellant testified that she needs a vehicle to assist her elderly mother with shopping, picking up prescriptions and attending medical appointments.

10On cross-examination, the appellant acknowledged that she has been able to rely on friends or family members to assist her and her grandson with transportation. She indicated that she has not missed any work and her grandson has not missed any school during the period of impoundment. She also admitted that with the assistance of friends, she has managed to drop off prescriptions and other items at her mother’s nursing home.

11I have no doubt that the appellant has found it very stressful and inconvenient to make alternative arrangements for transportation during the period of impoundment. However, since she has managed to find alternatives, the appellant has not established that the impoundment of her vehicle has resulted in exceptional hardship, as defined in the Regulation.

ORDER:

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