Tracy Martin v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 55015

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2022-06-22

An appeal under subsection 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from the impoundment of a motor vehicle pursuant to Section 55.1 of the Act.

Between:

Tracy Martin Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

ORDER

Panel: Laura Hodgson, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Self Represented

For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent

Place and date of hearing: By teleconference, June 16, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

Overview

1The appellant’s motor vehicle was detained and impounded on May 10, 2022, for 45 days under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 8 (the “Act”). This section allows a police officer to detain and impound a motor vehicle if the driver’s licence of the driver is suspended for a Criminal Code related reason. Here, the driver of the appellant’s vehicle never had a valid driver’s licence and had numerous Criminal Code related suspensions on his driving record.

2The appellant relies on the ground that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship within the meaning of s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.

3Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, and for the reasons given below, I find that the appellant established, on a balance of probabilities, exceptional hardship pursuant to the legislation and regulations. The appeal is allowed, and the vehicle is ordered released.

Exceptional Hardship

4The appellant testified that because of a workplace injury, she suffers from chronic back pain. She lives in Guelph and attends a pain clinic in Kitchener every week to receive nerve block injections. There was no detailed evidence about the appellant’s medical condition, but she provided documentation from her family doctor and the physician that administers the injections. Both physicians indicated that the appellant requires a vehicle to attend her weekly appointments. She also requires her vehicle to take her stepfather, who lives with her, to medical appointments at a cancer clinic in Hamilton. The appellant uses her vehicle to take her 16-year-old daughter to appointments relating to her rheumatoid arthritis but there was no evidence of this being a regular event.

5Since the vehicle impoundment, the appellant has missed two appointments to receive nerve block injections from her physician at the Kitchener clinic. She was able to attend one appointment with the assistance of her cousin who lives in Kitchener. This necessitated the appellant’s cousin picking her up the day prior to her appointment and then returning her home the following day. This solution is not practical as it requires a 3-day commitment. The appellant stated that her brother has a vehicle, but it is not available as he works full time. He is willing to assist periodically in driving her stepfather to his treatment. The appellant testified that, because of her back injury, she cannot walk to take public transit. She noted that she is in receipt of disability benefits.

Law and Analysis

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. Subsection 10(1) requires the Tribunal to consider whether an alternative to the impounded vehicle is available. If the owner fails to establish that there is no alternative available, then her appeal must fail. In order to show that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, the owner must demonstrate that every reasonable option has been considered that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or loss to the person.

7If the appellant 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. The Tribunal can never consider whether the impoundment will result in inconvenience to a person.

8The appellant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that she does not have an alternative to her impounded vehicle as set out in s. 10(4) of the Regulation. She acknowledged receiving, only on one occasion, a drive from her cousin who lives in another city. She is not able to take public transit and her limited income precludes other options, such as taxis, Uber or renting a vehicle. The appellant has established that, in the circumstances, there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle.

9Having established that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle, I must next consider whether not having the impounded vehicle will result in a threat to health and safety as set out in s. 10 (1) of the Regulation. I accept the appellant’s testimony that she suffers from chronic pain and requires weekly injections to help manage this pain. As noted, the appellant provided medical documentation confirming her weekly appointments for pain management. She has now missed two appointments as a result of the impoundment. In these circumstances, I accept that the appellant not having the impounded vehicle results in a threat to her health and safety.

Conclusion and ORDER

10For the above reasons, and pursuant to section 50.2(5) of the Act, I allow the appeal and order the release of the appellant’s vehicle.