Appeal under Section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from an Impoundment of a Motor Vehicle pursuant to section 55.1 of that Act
Between:
Keirstyn Cove
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Keirstyn Cove, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Leila Pereira, Agent
Heard by teleconference: October 3, 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
background
1Keirstyn Cove (the “appellant”) appeals the 45-day impoundment of her 2021 Jeep Wrangler motor vehicle (the “vehicle”) under section 55.1 of the Highway Traffic Act (the "Act"). The appellant's vehicle was impounded on September 1, 2022, when it was found being driven by Daniel Ryan (“the driver”), a driver with a suspended driver’s licence.
2The appellant’s grounds of appeal are that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship.
ISSUES
3As per the Case Conference Report and Order, the issues to be determined are:
i. Whether the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.
result
4For the reasons that follow, the impoundment is confirmed.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Issue – Will the impoundment of the vehicle result in exceptional hardship
5The appellant appeals the impoundment of the vehicle on the basis that the impoundment will result in exceptional hardship, under s. 50.2(3)(d) of the Act.
Evidence of the Respondent
6The respondent referred to the Notice to Registrar, dated September 1, 2022 in which Daniel Ryan is listed as the driver of the vehicle and the appellant as the owner of the vehicle. The Notice to Registrar states the location of incident as Third Line East, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
7The respondent referred to the Extended Driver’s Record Search for Criminal Code Convictions of the driver, dated September 26, 2022. The Driver’s Record Search lists the driver’s licence status as Suspended, Cancelled, Unlicensed and Unrenewable due to a criminal conviction.
Testimony of the Appellant
8The appellant testified that she is currently 26 weeks pregnant with her first child and lives with her partner, the driver of the vehicle. They have no other vehicles. Her workplace, where she works as an esthetician, is approximately a five-minute drive from their home.
9The appellant has missed one hour of work since the impoundment. She has relied on friends and workmates for transporting to work and home.
10The appellant has had no medical emergencies since the impoundment and that she has access to 911 services. The appellant relies on friends for rides for obtaining groceries and other essentials. She has access to public transit, although the “five-minute ride would not work with the bus schedule”.
Analysis
11Section 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 I find that there is an alternative to the impounded vehicle, then I need not consider any other requirements. Further, section 10 (4) of the Regulation puts the burden of proof on the owner of the impounded vehicle to demonstrate that every reasonable alternative has been considered and inquired into that could eliminate or adequately mitigate any threat or less to the person, including using another vehicle and making arrangements to make to do without the impounded vehicle.
12Given that the appellant has alternatives to the impounded vehicle, including access to public transit and assistance from friends and workmates, the evidence does not support a finding of exceptional hardship. Pursuant to s. 10 of the Regulation, my finding that there are alternatives to the impounded vehicle renders it unnecessary for me to consider the other factors set out in the Regulation.
ORDER
13On the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, and pursuant to subsection 50.2(5) of the Act, I confirm the impoundment of the appellant’s vehicle.
Licence Appeal Tribunal
Jeffrey Campbell, Vice Chair
Released: October 5, 2022