Melissa Jack v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 30703

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2022-04-08 File Number: 13916/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:

Melissa Jack Appellant

• and -

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Jacqueline Castel

Appearances: For the Appellant: Self-represented For the Respondent: Stephen Gootenboer, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: April 8, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW:

1A teleconference hearing was held on April 8, 2022 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the impoundment of her motor vehicle, a 2012 Nissan, ATS (the “vehicle). The vehicle was impounded, on March 13, 2021, for a period of 45 days, because the driver’s licence was under a Criminal Code suspension at the time of the impoundment.

2The appellant’s fiancé (Shawn Sicard), whose licence is under a Criminal Code suspension, was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the impoundment. On the evening of the impoundment, they were staying in a hotel in Simcoe, Ontario. Even though Mr. Sicard had been drinking, the appellant gave him her car keys so he could check whether he left his phone inside the vehicle. Without her knowledge or consent, he drove the vehicle. When asked, the appellant told the police that Mr. Sicard did not steal the vehicle.

3The appellant only wishes to appeal the impoundment on the ground of exceptional hardship.

4The appellant does not contest that Mr. Sicard’s licence was under suspension or that the vehicle was impounded in accordance with the law.

ISSUE:

5The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

CONCLUSION:

6On 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 Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act” or the “HTA”)

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

7The 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.

8There 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 appeals on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

Exceptional Hardship

9Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that must be considered 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.

10The appellant testified that she does not work and resides with her mother-in-law. She stated that her mother-in-law has a vehicle and has been doing the groceries and other errands for the household during the period of impoundment.

11The appellant also testified that she assists in caring for her mother who has cancer. She submitted that she requires a vehicle to visit her mother, who resides approximately two hours away. The appellant stated that before the impoundment, she would normally stay with her mother for a couple of days every week. She indicated that her mother resides with her father, who assists with her care, when he is not working part-time. She also stated that her mother has a nurse who visits her daily and that her aunt has been assisting with her mother’s care during the period of impoundment.

12The appellant admitted, on cross-examination, that she did not look into renting a vehicle as she believes it would be too expensive. She also admitted that she did not ask her fiancé, who is employed, to assist with the cost of renting a vehicle.

13I have no doubt that the appellant has been inconvenienced because of the impoundment. However, the evidence does not support a finding of exceptional hardship because there are alternatives to the vehicle. The appellant’s mother-in-law has been looking after groceries and errands for the household. The appellant is not the sole caregiver for her mother, and her aunt has been filling in for her during the period of impoundment. The appellant also could have looked into the option of renting a vehicle or having someone drive her to her mother’s residence, for the period of the impoundment, rather than concluding that these options are too costly, without investigating them.

14Accordingly, for the above reasons, I find that the appellant has not established that the impoundment of her vehicle has resulted in exceptional hardship, as defined in the Regulation.

ORDER:

15Pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the HTA, I deny the appeal and confirm the impoundment.