Marion Andrew v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 30704

Date: 2022-04-12

Appeal under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an impoundment of a motor vehicle under section 55.1 of the Act

Between:

Marion Andrew

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Colin Osterberg, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Dylan Henderson, Counsel

For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: April 11, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW

1The appellant, Marion Andrew (the "appellant"), appeals the impoundment of her motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the "Act"). The appellant's motor vehicle was impounded on March 4, 2022. At the time of the impoundment, the driver was driving with a suspended licence. A Notice of Impoundment was issued for a period of 45 days.

2The appellant appeals on the ground that the impoundment will cause exceptional hardship. She also appealed on the ground that she exercised due diligence in attempting to determine that the driver's licence of the driver of the motor vehicle at the time it was detained in order to be impounded was not then under suspension but abandoned that ground at the hearing.

3For the reasons set out below, the appeal is dismissed, and the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.

ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED

4The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship under section 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

5The respondent presented evidence which establishes that:

(1) the appellant is the registered owner of the impounded vehicle, a 2013 Buick;

(2) on March 4, 2022, the police discovered the impounded vehicle being driven by the appellant's son, Robert Andrew ("Robert"); and

(3) Robert's licence was under suspension for a criminal conviction at the time it was impounded.

Exceptional Hardship

6Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 under the Act (the "Regulation") sets out the criteria and factors that the Tribunal must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment.

7Subsection 10(1) requires the Tribunal to first consider whether an alternative to the impounded vehicle is available. Subsection 10(4) states that in order to show that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle:

[T]he 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.

8If the owner fails to prove that no alternative to the impounded vehicle is available, then the appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act will fail. The evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that the appellant does have a reasonable alternative available.

9The appellant is 89 years old and lives at a rural residence with her son. She has no access to public transportation or taxi services and requires a vehicle in order to attend medical appointments and to complete activities away from her home such as grocery shopping and other errands.

10On March 4, 2022, the day the appellant's vehicle was impounded, she rented a car. She continues to rent the car and to use it to attend to her medical appointments and personal errands and activities. Although she missed one appointment for a hearing assessment during the impoundment period, that has been rescheduled and the appellant has been able to attend her other medical appointments. The appellant has been able to complete her grocery shopping and her other usual activities during the impoundment period by using the rented vehicle. She intends to continue renting a vehicle until the end of the impoundment period.

11I find that the appellant has not proven that there are no alternatives to the impounded vehicle available and her appeal under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act must fail as a result. I therefore need not make determinations with respect to the remaining components of the exceptional hardship test. Although the impoundment has resulted in inconvenience and expense, the appellant has failed to prove exceptional hardship under the Act and her appeal must fail on this ground.

ORDER

12For the reasons set out above, the impoundment of the appellant's vehicle is confirmed.