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:
Dorothy Powell
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Colin Osterberg, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Dorothy Powell, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: April 20, 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1Dorothy Powell (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 22, 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. Although she presented evidence to the effect that the vehicle might have been stolen when it was detained for the purposes of impoundment, the appellant elected not to pursue that as a ground of appeal.
3For the reasons set out below, the appeal is allowed, and the Registrar is ordered to release the appellant’s motor vehicle.
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 2016 Mitsubishi;
(2) on March 22, 2022, the police discovered the impounded vehicle being driven by the appellant’s boyfriend, Chadwick Button; and
(3) Mr. Button’s licence was under suspension for a criminal conviction at the time the vehicle 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 establishes that there is no alternative available, the Tribunal must then consider whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health and safety of any person ordinarily transported by the vehicle, a threat to public health or safety, or a threat to the environment or property of a community in whose service the vehicle is ordinarily used.
9The appellant lives in a rural area about 20 minutes by car from Port Rowan and half a mile from her nearest neighbour. She lives with two of her children, ages 11 and 17, and her six-year-old granddaughter. There is no transit service available in the appellant’s area and no taxi or ride-sharing service available to her. The appellant is receiving Ontario Works as her only source of income and cannot reasonably afford to rent a vehicle for the remainder of the impoundment period. She has no family or friends in the area from whom she can borrow a vehicle.
10The appellant’s granddaughter was born with a heart defect which requires surgery. She is waiting for surgery to become available to her at Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto, which is about two and a half hours away, and may be told to come in for that surgery at any time. Although she may have a couple of days notice, it is possible that the notice may be shorter. It is the appellant’s understanding that her granddaughter’s condition is life-threatening and that it is important that she attend for the surgery as soon as it becomes available to her.
11In addition, the appellant’s granddaughter is regularly required to attend at Sick Kids Hospital to meet with her cardiac team to review her status. The impounded vehicle was her means of attending those appointments and she has no other way of doing so during the impoundment period.
12I am satisfied that every reasonable option has been considered and inquired into and that there are no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle available. I am satisfied that the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of the appellant