Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis
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:
Trevor James Wall Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Trevor Wall, Self-represented For the Respondent: Leila Pereira
Heard by teleconference: August 17, 2022
1Trevor Wall (the “appellant”) appeals the impoundment of his motor vehicle under s. 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. H.8 (the “Act”). The appellant’s motor vehicle was impounded on July 6, 2022. At the time of the impoundment, Kendra Jacobs was driving the vehicle while her licence was suspended due to a criminal conviction. 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.
3For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal confirms the impoundment.
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.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
5The respondent presented evidence which establishes that:
(1) the appellant is the registered owner of the impounded vehicle, a 2008 Mazda CX9 (the “Mazda”), and a 2017 GMC Sierra;
(2) on July 6, 2022, the police discovered the Mazda being driven by Ms. Kendra Ashley Jacobs (“Ms. Jacobs”) in Gravenhurst, Ontario. and
(3) Ms. Jacobs’ licence was under suspension at the time the Mazda was detained for the purpose of impoundment.
6According to the testimony of the appellant, he, Ms. Jacobs and their two children, ages six and seven live in Alma, Ontario. According to the appellant, their home is approximately 35 minutes from Guelph, Ontario, the location of the appellant’s workplace. The appellant testified that they live in the country, with no taxi, ride sharing or public transport available. There are also no grocery delivery services. The appellant testified that there is 911 service available, and it would take an ambulance, he would hope, no more than 15 or 20 minutes to get to their home if there was a medical emergency.
7The appellant testified that Ms. Jacobs is 32 weeks into a high-risk pregnancy. She is scheduled for a C-Section delivery on September 30, 2022. Ms. Jacobs suffers from a genetic heart condition that can compromise the pregnancy. For this reason, she is attending bi-weekly appointments at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, where the C-Section delivery is scheduled. The appellant testified that the drive from their home to Mt. Sinai Hospital is anywhere from 1 ¾ to 3 ½ hours, depending on traffic. The appellant testified that they have borrowed vehicles, rented or gotten a ride to these appointments.
8The appellant testified that for the first week of the impoundment, he rented a vehicle to get to and from work, although he did miss some work that week. After that, he borrowed vehicles and got rides to get to work and back. The appellant testified that his employer is aware of the appellant’s transportation situation and challenge. The appellant testified that he was concerned that his employer would let him go, as he was in his probationary period. Fortunately, this has not occurred.
9The respondent referred to a Registrant Identification Number Summary which shows 10 vehicles registered to the appellant. The appellant testified that two are snowmobiles, two are trailers, one is an unusable farm truck that he had left at a friend’s farm, one is a vehicle that he had scrapped and there are two other vehicles which are also unusable. That leaves the Mazda and a 2017 GMC Sierra (the “Sierra”), which he purchased with the help of family on August 12, 2022. Unlike the other vehicles, the appellant gave no evidence indicating that the Sierra was in a condition unfit for use.
10Section 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.
11Subsection 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.
12If 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.
13If the owner proves that there is no alternative to the impounded vehicle available, then s. 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 s. 10(3), if the appellant has proven 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.
14The appellant has testified that he has rented a vehicle and gotten rides as well as borrowed vehicles to get to work in Guelph. He testified that he has obtained a new vehicle on August 12, 2022, namely the Sierra. This new vehicle can be utilized in the case of a medical emergency resulting from Ms. Jacobs’ high-risk pregnancy.
15According to the evidence presented I find that the appellant has not proven that there are no alternatives to the Mazda available and his 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, the appellant has failed to prove exceptional hardship under the Act and his appeal must fail on this ground.
ORDER
16For the reasons set out above, the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle is confirmed.
Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
Released: August 22ND, 2022