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:
Carmel Cooper
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Kevin Lundy, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Carmel Cooper, Self-Represented
For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: July 20, 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1The Appellant, Carmel Cooper (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 May 30, 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.
ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED
3The issue to be determined is whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship pursuant to subsection 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.
RESULT
4For the reasons set out below, the appeal is dismissed and the impoundment of the vehicle is confirmed.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
5The Respondent presented uncontested evidence which demonstrates that:
a. the Appellant is the registered owner of the impounded vehicle, a 2011 Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab;
b. On May 30, 2022, police discovered the impounded vehicle being driven by her son, Cory James Cooper (‘C.J.C.’); and
c. C.J.C.’s licence was under suspension for a criminal conviction at the time the motor 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 Licence Appeal Tribunal (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.
9If the owner proves that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle available, then subsection 10(1) of the Regulation requires the Tribunal to consider whether the impoundment will result in a threat to the health or safety of any person ordinarily transported by the motor vehicle, or to the environment or community in whose service the motor vehicle is ordinarily used. According to subsection 10(3), if the Appellant demonstrates that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle the Tribunal may, in limited circumstances, consider financial, economic, or employment losses. The Tribunal may not consider inconvenience when determining whether the Appellant has proven exceptional hardship.
10In the present case, the Appellant resides in a rural area outside Fergus, Ontario, located between 60 to 64 kilometers from her place of employment. After her vehicle was impounded, she initially used her 2018 Nissan Qashqai for transportation. However, when that vehicle required repairs to its brakes, she relied upon co-workers to take her to and from work. On July 14, 2022, she paid the full impoundment fees owing with her credit card and her vehicle was released from the impound lot. As her co-workers were able to offer transportation from the date that her Qashqai was out of service to the date that she recovered her impounded vehicle, she missed no work as a result of the impoundment. Similarly, she was never unable to obtain groceries or other essentials during the period of impoundment. The only prior arrangement missed during the period of impoundment was a dental appointment which she simply rescheduled.
11While there is no public transit near her home, she acknowledged that the area is covered by 911 emergency services and taxi service is available. She also has two other vehicles registered to her name, though the condition of these vehicles was not disclosed. Despite the inconvenience of not having the use of her vehicle, she acknowledged that throughout the impoundment, she was not prevented from doing anything of critical importance that she would otherwise have done or from accessing any necessary resources.
12Although C.J.C. offered assurances that he would contribute to the cost of recovering her vehicle from the impound lot, as of the date of the hearing, he had not done so. He is presently employed on a part-time basis. The Appellant stated that if her son ultimately does not compensate her for some or all of the impound fees, she will “do her best” to deal with this expense herself. She described no extraordinary impediment that would likely prevent her from doing so.
13Ultimately, I find that the Appellant has not proven that there were no alternatives to the impounded vehicle available and her appeal under subsection 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, the Appellant has failed to prove exceptional hardship under the Act and her appeal must fail on this ground.
ORDER
14For the reasons set out above, the impoundment of the Appellant’s vehicle is confirmed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_________________________
Kevin Lundy
Member
RELEASED: August 9th, 2022