William Morris v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 38880

Date: 2022-05-06

File Number: 13979/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:

William Morris

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicators: Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair Jacqueline Castel, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Self-represented

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent

Teleconference Hearing: May 4, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW:

1A teleconference hearing was held on May 4, 2022 to consider the appellant’s appeal of the 45 day impoundment of his 2018 Ford (the “vehicle) under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act (the “Act” or the “HTA”).

2The vehicle was impounded on April 6, 2022 because it was being driven by the appellant’s friend whose driver’s licence is under a Criminal Code suspension.

3The appellant is requesting that the Tribunal make a finding that the impoundment should be set aside and order the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to release the vehicle.

ISSUES:

4The issue to be determined is does the impoundment result in exceptional hardship for the appellant?

CONCLUSION:

5On the evidence before us at the hearing, we find that the impoundment did not result in exceptional hardship within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

6The owner of a vehicle that has been impounded pursuant to s. 55.1(1) of the HTA may, pursuant to s. 50.2, appeal the impoundment 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 that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.

Exceptional Hardship

8Section 10 of O. Reg. 631/98 (the “Regulation”) sets out the criteria and factors that I must consider in determining whether exceptional hardship will result from an impoundment. To establish exceptional hardship, the first requirement set out in s. 10(1) of the Regulation is that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle. If we find that there is an alternative to the impounded vehicle, then we need not consider any other requirements.

9The appellant testified that, in addition to the impounded vehicle, his wife owns a vehicle which she uses for her own work. He also acknowledged that he owns a motorcycle, which he uses when the weather permits, and another vehicle which is under repair.

10The appellant testified that, while he and his wife live in London, Ontario, his work in construction is located in the Bruce Peninsula. While working, the appellant temporarily resides in Kincardine, Ontario. The appellant explained that there are no taxis in the Kincardine area before noon, and there is no public transit.

11The appellant testified that, during the period of impoundment, he has received rides from friends and co-workers to and from work, and on approximately four occasions he used his motorcycle to get to work. The appellant also stated that his employer is aware of the impoundment of his vehicle and has accommodated him by arranging rides and rescheduling assignments. Since the impoundment, the appellant has missed approximately 4 hours of work, which included the time he spent attending the case conference relating to this appeal and the hearing.

12Further, the appellant testified that when he has been at his London residence, during the period of impoundment, he has been able to use his wife’s vehicle for errands and household needs.

13Given that the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including a motorcycle, rides from friends and co-workers, and his wife’s vehicle for errands at home, the evidence does not support a finding of exceptional hardship.

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

ORDER:

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